Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 95

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90←Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95Archive 96Archive 97→Archive 100

Experienced editor still adding unsourced information after multiple warnings

Hi Serge. For months, the editor CloversMallRat has been adding/updating Billboard Country Airplay chart peaks on artist discographies and song articles every week. Most of the sources they use work (single chart templates that provide links to artists' chart history pages, or manual citations in the column header on discographies). However, Billboard sometimes disables artist chart history pages for whatever reason, so the chart itself or another Billboard source containing the peak must be cited with a manual citation to verify them. CloversMallRat refuses to do this for the most part, unless I happen to notice and revert them for it (I'm the only editor who seems to notice or care). They have even changed access-dates for non-functioning links like they've gotten the information from them (the links redirect to Billboard's generic "Music" landing page, which shows news articles and no links to or lists of artist chart information). I just gave them a final warning before noticing that it appears I've been asking them to make sure sources work since March 2020 (see User talk:CloversMallRat#Country chart URLs) and they've refused to explain or change their behaviour since. Maybe you can try and get an answer out of them or ask them to change their behaviour because they've ignored my four subsequent threads (template warnings with explanatory headings) on the same matter. Ss112 06:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have had discourse with this user plenty over the years thanks to their often unsolicited advice and have made continual efforts to improve upon the issues they've brought up, but they have almost always taken an approach that comes from an authoritative and dismissive angle rather than one of constructive criticism. We've been editors on Wikipedia for the same length of time -- since 2006 -- and he always pops off in his edit summaries and/or on my talk page with a nasty tone that seems at odds with the fact we are contemporaries in the same boat. Like today, it's quite literally Christmas and I log on to see him threatening to report me because I updated a chart peak without noticing Billboard had broke one of their own links sometime in the past couple weeks that had previously been working just fine, a rather minor inconvenience at best. It seems like a personal vendetta against me more than anything at this point, because I am 100% only making edits on this site in good faith with the intention of making sure country music articles are properly kept up with as much as possible, as I have for nearly 2 decades. This user is very dismissive of the significant portion of edits that I put forth that are satisfactory and discredits them over the select few that miss the mark. I don't pretend to be perfect as no human is and one can look back over prior discussions I've had with this user and my edits on pages he's had issues with (i.e. editing peaks for Jimmie Allen) and see that I've made adjustments as needed. The notion that I've been ignoring their requests for improvement is quite simply untrue. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason you're not doing what he asks? I'm not saying either is right or wrong, I'm just trying to understand. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@CloversMallRat: Amazing that only now that I say I will be going to an administrator do you finally respond in over two and a half years. Quite simply, you should not be adding unsourced peaks—you can call it a "rather minor inconvenience at best" and be editing in "100% good faith" all you like, but unsourced edits are unsourced edits, and this laziness in not checking sources has been happening with you for, as I just said, over two and a half years. Also, there is no chance this amount of times with specific examples in each (March 2020, September 2021, November 2021, April 2022, May 2022, September 2022, November 2022) is a "minor inconvenience at best" or can be dismissed as a "personal vendetta" considering Clovers knows full well that I also update Country chart peaks occasionally and am active in the topic area. Enough is enough. Also, Clovers is not telling the truth here. One specific example, as I pointed out on Dillon Carmichael here, I specifically recall shortly after I stopped regularly updating the Country Airplay peaks earlier this year (after May) that it did not work, meaning Carmichael's chart history page has not worked for over half a year. That is not "sometime in the past couple weeks" at all—this is not something that just happened and that I'm going out of my way to give Clovers a hard time over. I hold anybody updating chart peaks (an area I obviously focus on) to the same standard. Clovers has also cited Billboard URLs for charts that have not updated yet, as like here.
Clovers, you clearly get the peaks from Billboard's Country Update PDF but you change access-dates on links to artist chart history pages like you accessed those, but you did not, meaning you frequently cite sources that no longer work. It is not one or two examples. It's happened for a couple of years on plenty of country artists' pages, hence my warnings on your talk page (and those are just the times I actually directly came to you about it). The amount of users on this website who have only seen my interactions with them personally and think that I have the time or care to have some "personal vendetta" against them like I haven't warned another several dozen editors over similar issues is amusing. I can't think what I would personally have against CloversMallRat—I hold all users to the same standard but so often it's a "personal vendetta" or "Ss112 has something against me". No, it appears I'm just the only editor holding you to account for adding unsourced chart peaks. There is no excuse in adding unsourced chart positions or not checking sources to see if they work. The notion that I've been ignoring their requests for improvement is quite simply untrue. Yes, it is "quite simply untrue" because as I pointed out, you are still not always actually checking to see if artist chart history pages work, as I first asked you to do in March 2020. Clovers, nowhere did I state that you do not source any of your edits. I explained this applies solely to your chart edits. Sure, I concede you've made "improvements" if "improvements" mean the times where I've reverted you and pointed out the source does not work, and only then you provided a source. I've been saying from the start of this issue that you should check the sources used on the articles in the first place. Considering I always do the same, I don't think that's too much of an ask of anybody else updating the same chart positions. Ss112 22:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused because the user literally just pointed out examples where I have recognized the errors and made efforts to improve. He's highlighting one recent example where I didn't properly update a source out of dozens upon dozens of edits with 0 issues. He also began his last statement saying that it's amazing that I have only just now chosen to respond for the first time in over two and a half years, despite the fact that we've gone round and round a half dozen times at least on my talk page prior to this, so the notion that that I've been silent is completely false. Our first interactions actually date clear back to 2017, and a quick perusal of my talk page will show that Ss112 is not telling the truth about me failing to respond and would also show some of the nasty ways he has been dismissive and abrasive towards me (between that and his edit summaries frequently being of a similar holier-than-thou bent). His angle continues to not be one of grace or constructive criticism, and he continues to discount that I make these mistakes far and few between. He is correct that I sometimes miss when the links become broken and I will continue to get better about remembering to check them as I already have been doing. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@CloversMallRat: I'm literally speaking to you. Can you please address me instead of referring to me as "the user" like you're still addressing Serge? It's very strange. because the user literally just pointed out examples where I have recognized the errors and made efforts to improve As I just pointed out, in those examples, you only "improved" after I reverted you. Nobody should have to revert you for you to "improve" or to cite a functioning source, and more importantly, you have still continued to not check some sources work. Dozens upon dozens of edits I made it clear I was talking about some of your chart edits, not all edits you make. so the notion that that I've been silent is completely false No it's not, you have not said anything to me on your talk page for two and a half years. I specified this. I never said you had not spoken to me prior to this two-and-a-half year period. His angle continues to not be one of grace or constructive criticism I'm sorry that my tone is not one of "grace" after you are still making the same 'not checking that the source works even when you're updating its access-date' edits two and a half years later. I trust you understand it gets a bit tiring to still try to "constructively criticise" somebody when you've pointed an issue out multiple times previously and yet they still do the same thing. I think it's fair to say my first few messages on the topic were more of a "reminder" (I even used the edit summary 'reminder' on your talk page earlier this year) yet you still ignored me, so when it kept happening, I was understandably annoyed that you still were not checking that sources you're claiming to cite work and so I began templating and having the "tone" you speak of in edit summaries. Even now, I think it's clear you're only responding because I informed an administrator (and not even speaking directly to me). You'd have continued on ignoring me and making the same edits if I hadn't informed Serge. I find it hypocritical that you call me "dismissive and abrasive" then make sure to add dismissive, abrasive and frankly unnecessary comments about me like nasty ways and holier-than-thou bent lol. Please practice what you preach. Nothing else has gotten you to respond and finally say "I will continue to get better about remembering to check" sources aside from my informing an administrator. At the very least, thank you for finally acknowledging the problem despite the fact it shouldn't have to have gotten to this point. Ss112 00:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I actually hit the reply button under Serge's comment and WAS speaking to him since he asked me a question, which is why you'll notice that our comments are indented with the same measurement, so for someone so observant, I would've thought you'd notice that. But he also addressed me and before I could even reply, you had already steamrolled in here in your typical narcissistic fashion and talked over me, once again. You have in the past done a back-and-forth with me and then gotten into the dismissive 'I'm too good for this discussion, do not continue to ping me. Bye.' tropes that can be viewed on my talk page, so I'm not sure why after several encounters like that, I was expected to go round-and-round with you again. You're quite frankly a pretty insufferable person to interact with so forgive me for wanting to minimize our contact, lmao. That said, you got onto me about these things on several artists pages and then I stopped making those mistakes, Jimmie Allen being a good example of this since that's the one you sent me the most inquiries about. I made a mistake on the Dillon Carmichael edit by not noticing that his link had been broken when it previously worked, but I'd hardly call that grounds for the type of hysteria you've put yourself into over it. I do my absolute best to make worthwhile edits to and create pages for country music songs/artists/albums/etc. but I know that I'm not perfect and make mistakes and the one in question that you're complaining about has been explained already as a pretty minor slip-up that you've brought to my attention and now won't happen again on his page because I know that the link has been broken by BB now. I should've noticed, but I didn't that time. C'est la vie. The world moves on. CloversMallRat (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@CloversMallRat: You still referred to me as "the user" when I'm right here. Pretty strange. Yet again: I listed at least seven examples above of times I specifically warned you on your talk page over the last two and a half years of not checking sources. Stop trying to minimise the amount of times this has happened or imply it's just one or a couple of examples and "hysteria" when you know it's not. How much "improvement" has there been when you did not check a source again just the other day? You know it is not just Dillon Carmichael's article; that is just the latest example. I told you Carmichael's chart history page has not worked for months but you were updating the access-date of the source like it worked in November and December when I know it didn't—it hasn't worked since at least June 2022. Also, yet again, you have made "dismissive and abrasive" comments after accusing me of doing the same. steamrolled in here in your typical narcissistic fashion and talked over me I started this discussion. I haven't talked "over" you. You have your replies; I have mine. pretty insufferable person At least I check sources every time. If that makes me "insufferable" to hold you to account because I edit country chart positions too, so be it. Nobody else is. The fact remains you have repeatedly added unsourced chart positions, "in good faith" or not. I'd rather be insufferable than repeatedly attempt to minimise things despite the person I'm talking to citing seven examples of warnings on your talk page plus at least three other linked examples (Zimmerman, Carmichael, Jimmie Allen per you). I actually find it pretty "insufferable" that a user still can't check all sources after two and a half years despite repeated claims they have "improved". Is this just your opportunity to vent and insult me? It really looks like it. If you have nothing else to say except insults because you decided to not say "I will continue to get better about remembering to check" sources for the last two and a half years, there's really no point in replying. Please stop being hypocritical and criticising me for my tone in what I have said to you then just insulting me because you're frustrated. Please stop attacking me (WP:PERSONAL) and focus on the issue. Nowhere have I said the same things about you. Practice what you preach, as I said in my previous reply. Oh, and also, you made some characterisation above about how it was "quite literally Christmas" when I warned on your talk page two days ago. You state on your user page you live in Missouri, so it was past midnight on December 26 in Missouri when I posted on your talk page. That's not "quite literally Christmas". Ss112 23:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd say 7 examples out of my 22,600+ edits across nearly two decades is not exactly a great batting average if you're trying to convince me or anyone else that I am making rampant mistakes on a daily basis, but continue to go off and say that there's no hysteria on your part, lol. Also the end comment has me "quite literally" laughing because randomly circling back to that comment and choosing to address it now for the first time by throwing it in there at the end as some kinda 'gotcha' moment and nitpicking that you may have actually messaged me just after Xmas ended is not the flex you think it is at this point. The straws are firmly grasped. For the sake of it, I actually did a conversion on when you messaged me since all my timestamps show up in UTC time zone and that means I received your message about exactly 30 mins after Xmas technically ended, so, yeah, thanks for waiting I guess? Good thing I wasn't on holiday vacation on the west coast for Xmas or that could've been a dicey situation on your end. Or maybe I was? How would you even know? Lol. Since we're creeping on user pages, yours currently states that you've been here entirely too long and I must say that seems accurate because your entire demeanor and these responses scream that you desperately need to touch some grass, because none of this is worth this kinda drama. CloversMallRat (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say or imply all or most of your edits were unsourced. But you know it's more than seven, because I have repeatedly pointed out those are just the times I went to your talk page instead of directly reverting you, and there were three other mentioned examples as I said in my previous message. It's probably more like several dozen out of the 22,000 at this point. Check sources to see if they work. It's really not hard. And yet more baseless insults from you. Do you feel better now, having gotten that all out of your system considering you didn't want to engage with a "narcissistic" and "holier-than-thou" editor for two and a half years? Anybody would probably tell a user with at least 22,000 edits to Wikipedia to touch some grass, so that's not the burn you think it is. You lied and said it was "quite literally Christmas" and it wasn't, now you insult me because you got called out on it. Really quite sad behaviour from somebody who habitually adds unsourced content, but I can't say I expected anything less. You amplified the "drama". This could've just been me informing Serge when you weren't pinged here, but you felt the need to reply, so here we are. You're not blameless in prolonging "drama". @Sergecross73: Can you please intervene here before this user adds another 10 insulting personal-attack replies? We've gone from pointing out examples to CloversMallRat trying to come up with some pathetic burns like "you've been here too long", "you're narcissistic", and can't forget the Internet classic, "I'm literally laughing at what you said". Who's acting holier than thou now? After two and a half years, I'd have expected most people to have more hard-hitting points but I guess not. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness from Clovers here is something to behold. Ss112 00:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Lol @ me "lying" about the Christmas thing. You sent me the message THIRTY. MINUTES. after Xmas had technically ended in the time zone I live in, which you only know about because I have something on my user page that connects me to a certain part of the country (I live in a different state now fwiw, not that it matters or that I have to disclose that kind of information to you anyway). There were no lies boo. You keep setting up these false narratives like that and prove what I'm talking about and taking issue with in regards to you, which is that you speak in hyperbole and attempt these "gotcha" moments to feel better about yourself. And I felt the need to reply because you keep lighting up my talk page airing grievances and the few times I've taken the bait, you just get nasty and quite literally disengage from the discussion, and that's all ignoring the times you've brought something to my attention and I've made the necessary edits needed. Serge provided ME with a question and I responded to it and thus far he hasn't said anything further on the topic, but you've continued to breathe down my neck in the time since then starting by jumping in before I could even respond to him. You are a master of gaslighting trying to flip the script of everything you exemplify in your replies and just turn it into a "no, you"... like telling me that I somehow came up with a pathetic burn like "you've been here too long" when it's quite literally your own words from your user page. The way you twist things to suit your narrative is an artform, lol. And I was only laughing, because we went from you complaining that I missed a broken Billboard link to you attempting to argue with me about time zones of all things. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
More lying. I missed a broken Billboard link There have been at least 10 cited examples of you adding unsourced material/not checking links, not "one". It's a lie to say it's one, "boo". like telling me that I somehow came up with a pathetic burn like "you've been here too long" when it's quite literally your own words from your user page I'm well aware of that, but I didn't use it as an insult on my user page. You tried to turn it into one, which is what I'm calling pathetic. More hypocrisy, as in the preceding sentence you tell me I'm trying to flip the script. attempt these "gotcha" moments to feel better about yourself All your replies since calling me "dismissive and abrasive" have been a demonstration of how hypocritical someone can be without realising it. Seems you're trying to prove something here with these personal attacks to feel better about yourself otherwise you wouldn't be making them. The belittling "boo"... as you said, "I'm literally laughing". At this point I'm just using your Internet tough guy words back at you. This all sounds like pent-up frustration that you think you're justified in saying to me on an administrator's talk page, when you were and still are the one in the wrong for adding unsourced material to Wikipedia for two and a half years then trying to convince yourself and anybody reading this back-and-forth that it's "one" example I've created "hysteria" and "drama" over. You are a master of gaslighting Says who you has said multiple times now it's "one" example. Isn't gaslighting trying to manipulate people by saying something never happened? You're trying to tell me and anybody reading here it's "one" when there are ten cited examples...that sounds gaslighting to me. Even though you're doing the exact same thing, you still insist I'm the one turn[ing] it into a "no, you". How could I not when you are projecting and doing the same things you're accusing me of? This needs to stop. Sergecross73 please archive this miserable thread. Ss112 00:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
^If "had to have the last word" was a person, lol. Serge literally hasn't even said anything yet beyond the one question he asked me that you jumped in and answered for me, so I'm starting to think maybe he has better things to worry about on Wikipedia than your hysterics, and it's amusing you how you keep asking him to stop the madness but yet continue to engage in it with increasing vitriol and dramatics. I never said there was only one instance of me making a mistake, but that one recent mistake is the reason you went to an administrator so I am addressing that instance because the other examples you've previously cited are from issues that have since been resolved so at this point they aren't part of the discussion (i.e. I haven't made any mistakes editing Jimmie Allen's chart peaks because I KNOW that the link doesn't work for him; Dillon Carmichael's used to work so I didn't routinely check it so it's a different issue). And now you're harping on my use of the word "boo" so am I detecting a bit of homophobia directed my way now for the way I speak? All I'm taking from this now is that you're easily rattled and enjoy arguments because you started this with complaints that I apparently spent too much of the past few years ignoring you/not engaging in discourse and now the complaint appears to be that you didn't expect me to respond and serve up the same dish you keep serving others. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Serge, do you see what I mean about discouraging personal attacks and archiving threads? Clovers, I'm apparently in "hysterics" but yet you're asking if I'm "homophobic" because I repeated you calling me "boo"? See what I mean about projection and hypocrisy? WTF does repeating a silly name you called me have to do with homophobia? I'm done with these unhinged, admittedly retaliatory ("serve up the same dish you keep serving others"), hypocritical replies. I'm sure you will want the last word even though that's apparently me, but I'm done encouraging it. Serge, I think you should hold this user to account for adding unsourced material and making this thread personal by repeatedly insulting me to vent when I never wanted them to contribute here but I can't force you to. I'm out. Ss112 01:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
If you're truly "done" this time then I suppose third time's a charm since you've said that thrice. Either way, you have espoused personal attacks against my character long before this discussion began and then as part of this discussion, all while deflecting blame on to me at every single opportunity. I'm out as well, because this only reinforced why I didn't fancy an engagement with you in the past and instead just fixed my mistakes and kept it moving, as I don't seek out the gotcha moments/pitfalls of others and instead just focus on making edits as needed, as that's what Wikipedia is all about. Should Serge see this and want further discourse, I'm happy to oblige, but I just don't see any point in continuing further as the minor inconveniences in question are rectified as I will check links much more regularly now that I'm aware Billboard 'breaks' them for seemingly no rhyme or reason. Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays y'all! CloversMallRat (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Admin response

Getting caught up on everything, some thoughts:

  • This seems to have blown up from an issue that isn't really that big if an issue. Should Clover be sure to check to make sure refs/links work? Of course. Has this lead to massive, widespread problems? Doesn't seem like it. Seems more like minor issues that have generally been fixed relatively quickly.
  • I get it, I've been roped into Wiki-drama when I've had important things going on in life. But Christmas or any other holiday is just as valid as any other day to confront or report editors. I get not liking it, but there's no actual wrongdoing in doing so, so there's no point in discussing this.
  • I'm glad both of you kept your comments here rather than somewhere like ANI, because I imagine would have roasted both of you for your comments above. Waaaay too much unconstructive comments, insults, aspersions, asides, etc. I don't wish to block either of you, but I could see other admin doing it if they witnessed discussion spiraling out of control like this. I am honestly not saying this as a threat, but as a concern that I truly believe it would happen if either of you escalated this to another venue.
  • Clover, please be more careful to keep this error from happening in the future.
  • Ss112, please don't come in so hot in smaller issues like this. Your warnings aren't wrong...but they could use some softening.
  • Feel free to seek a second opinion elsewhere, or talk page watchers feel free to chime in, if anyone wishes to discuss further. But I don't see any other resolution other than being more careful and civil here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

out of curiosity

it seems sometimes when i bring up a topic. i think it's a done deal, a lot of "ignoring all rules" applies. And I normally don't mind it, but it seems to always be consistent with the topics i bring up. For example, a couple years back, i proposed we stop promoting "Demon Souls and "Dark Souls" as part of the same series. And it was voted against. Not too long ago, it was supported by the very people who opposed it years back. And I found it very odd. I decided to avoid the discussion all-together, but I admit I'm a little bitter by it. Now it seems to happen again, despite false information being shared throughout the discussion. I don't hang out in discord, but is there an opinion out there of me I'm not aware of? I've been pretty respectful to everyone from what i can tell. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything like that, any grudges against you, etc. I don't spend a ton of time in the WP:VG discord, but I think most people handle it like WT:VG only without the NOTAFORUM restriction - I don't believe they'd be openly talking about hating you or anything. I know me and you've have been on opposite sides of some heated debates, but I dont personally hold any grudges or ill-will against you.
Honestly, it may just be a combination of shifting of attitudes and participants among discussions. I too have had a couple discussions go in very different directions than I thought they would, on articles I've maintained for a long time, in the last couple months. It's irritating, but it happens. Sometimes you go along with it, and other times you just go "okay, have it your way, but I'm no longer helping if we're going in this direction" internally and move on to something else. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your input. I'll give it a couple more years, and maybe consensus can change. I rarely have time to edit these days. so, I like to make my discussions and my edits count.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I hear you. My available time to edit varies these days, and I've been finding some of my more obscure projects more fulfilling these days, so my hope is similarly to stick to them and stay out if the extensive type debates when I can. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

ACNH

Hello, wondering why you have reverted my edit? The article on 1-Up Studio lists ACNH as one of the games the company helped develop. 99.110.73.218 (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Support studios are usually shown as efn footnotes. If you look at the article now, I mean the same way Monolith Soft is listed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Happy new year to you! I wish you a great 2023. I also admit laughing seeing this and wanted to thank you for it: [1] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, same to you! Glad you got a chuckle out of that. Still not sure if that was an accident or vandalism, or which scenario is funnier. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Sergecross73,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Shooterwalker (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Same to you! Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Steam Deck

"cloudflare images are 100% not an okay source on Wikipedia" in relation to a PDF accessible through a Cloudflare's Content Delivery Network in revert reason?

Linking to Portable Document Files (PDF), which are not images, is a valid citation form. WP:BOOKLINKS which redirects to WP:Citing Sources is one of suggestions for WP:PDF.

Disregarding a source because of the domain used, in this case by Valve Corporation, makes me question your good faith behind these edits/reverts even more.

It wouldn't be the first time document files from that domain are used as a valid citation. one, two

On top of that, you ignored 3 other sources, and instead of improving the article, you engage in edit war. Tracerneo (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on the Cloudfare images as a source issue - that was just one of many reasons you were reverted. The primary one is that there isn't consensus for your changes yet. There are 2 editors that oppose your edits. That means you need to stop making the edits, discuss, and only make the edits again when there is a clear consensus for moving forward.
Stop trying to steamroll the process. If you keep making your change without consensus, you're just going to end up getting your account blocked/locked out of editing the article. You're blatantly vioating the basics on a highly visible page. There's no way this ends well for you if you don't change your approach real quickly. Spend less time trying to lecture me, and more time on learning the basics. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 30

Serge's 30th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The user returned the second the page's protection ran out and says the content should remain because they can't find the same stuff on Microsoft's website. I've left a talk page post but still need eyes on it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Blocked for a month. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Sergecross73!

Happy New Year!

Sergecross73,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Same to you! Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

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

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverting the redirects

What gives exactly? You are being highly disruptive on Wikipedia creating so many random implausible redirects to begin with, and then proceeding to revert my edits with no rationale or note. Any one user does not WP:OWN Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I redirected the series article with edit summaries, so I thought the rest were pretty self explanatory? I've boldly reverted you once, as is my right, and have even pre-emotively even started up a discussion because I figured you'd oppose.Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
It's still disruptive to revert the redirects before an actual consensus has been formed. I am perfectly fine with putting them back if literally everyone says I am wrong. (I was clearly wrong to think it would be uncontroversial considering other 2 game series pages exist.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Again, a single revert for redirects that no longer made any sense after the series article redirect, is not "disruptive". Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, the irony, you trying to lecture me while you fundamentally don't follow WP:BRD. Sergecross73 msg me 13:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD-NOT. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." My good faith creation of a series article was reverted due to dislike of the changes, so I am not obliged to accept that it become a redirect until such time as consensus is reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
To summarize; BRD is for reverting bold, yet obviously detrimental changes, not good faith edits you disagree with. No one can say that a series article is a detriment; whether it should be there is a matter of policy though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Stop wasting my time with wikilawyering. I know very well how BRD works. My edits were in equally good faith, and it's very clear you're taking this so personally that you can't separate your feelings from the scenario. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_95&oldid=1138603197"