User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sergecross73. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Help/assistance wanted

Hi, i would like you to help me on a matter that is very important to me, i would like to no how and where is the place to report administrators. I am asking because i would like to report Kww. The false accusations he put on me have been very damaging and disruptive and has caused me and others a lot of extra work and wasted a lot of time. I am asking you as an administrator to serve your job and point me in the correct direction, i don't want your opinion on wether i should or shouldn't make a report. I understand that everyone makes mistakes but this is not the first time Kww has falsely accused someone of sockpuppetry and i doubt it will be the last, and to finish it off he is also rude to people. I think he abuses his power as an administrator and needs sorting out. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind my commenting here Sergecross73). Luke, KWW seems like an honorable admin who made a mistake in misidentifying you, and having looked at the evidence I think it was an excusable mistake. There were some questionable aspects of your contributions that were raised in that discussion, and though I don't think they should have kept you blocked, I do think you should quit while you're ahead. Trying to bring down a good admin like KWW will not end well. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Is that a threat? There are some corrupt administrators on here and the only reason they go unnoticed is because they bully anyone who try's to stop them. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't make threats, Luke - and I'd have no way to carry them out even if I did. There may well be some corrupt admins, but while KWW might perhaps appear a little hasty in his judgment, I see no evidence of anything other than honesty. And as a clear supporter of your unblock, I have to say I'm disappointed by your response to my friendly advice - I fully concur with what Sergecross73 says below. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Luke, he was clearly "going to bat for you" with your unblock, so it's very strange to think he'd be threatening. All the more evidence that I don't think you're being level-headed here. I think you're caught in the moment a bit... Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Neatsfoot - No problem. I have a lot of people who respond to questions on my talk page. I have no problem with it, I even encourage it, as long as they're being constructive. This is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Luke, if you insist, I guess WP:ANI would be the place for that. I really wouldn't recommend that though. I do agree that KWW was a bit hasty, and that maybe he didn't really handle himself in the best way when confronted either. But, while he was wrong in your block, his reasoning/process itself wasn't wrong. He was wrong in his conclusion, but the process he used to come to it, was not out of line, if that makes any sense. I think the very best you could hope for is a "KWW, be more careful in the future" out of this (something he's already heard from multiple people at this point). It's not like its severe enough to get him blocked or have him lose his admin rights or something. At worst, I think he could bring a lot of heat upon you, between your block log, and some of the other stuff KWW did find while looking through your edits. (Recreating articles you shouldn't, the meatpuppetry, etc.) Think long and hard on if you really want to do this. Maybe wait a day or two and reflect on it some. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to wait a few days but not because i might change my mind because i wont I'm gathering some shit together. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] You seem like a smart person that knows the difference between right and wrong, and how can that many people be wrong? Can you take a look at these please. Also when you check out the incidents involving administrators such as yourself here or Wifione here theres not that many for how many years you have been here but when i look at his here my internet times out when i try to view the 500 list. He seems to edit war at lot and bulky people with his administrative tools when he disagrees with them. He also seems to delete articles because "he doesn't like them" as opposed to a proper reason. I am 100% serious on this and i am asking you as an administrator to help me to make a professional and discreet report to the highest possible people. Lukejordan02 (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, Kww was hasty in his decisions, and not the easiest to deal with through the whole process, but ultimately, he "used an acceptable process to come up with the wrong conclusion". If he would have re-blocked right after I unblocked you, without any new evidence, yes, that would have been bad. But he didn't do that. He relented.
Additionally, the links you've given above...aren't going to do anything. All they show is that he argues with people, and sometimes gets a bit of an attitude. Yes, Wikipedia has a WP:CIVILity policy, but the general precedent is that, if the editor is overall contributing a lot, they tend to shrug it off. I'm not even crazy about this precedent, as there's been several editors I've had to deal with who had very bad civility issues, and it took a long time to get anywhere with dealing with it. Which brings me back to your case against KWW - its significantly weaker than the cases I've struggled with in the past. I mean, even if KWW wasn't a long term contributor, I still don't think much would come of this.
I'm not sure your measure of "appearances at ANI" is the most accurate way of measuring misconduct. I mean, I didn't search for KWW, but I know that personally, I'm pretty sure every single time I've been taken to ANI, it's been a bogus claim that was dismissed/thrown out. (To the best of my knowledge. I'm sure there's some jerk reading this right now already reading this and trying to prove that claim wrong. And it is possible that I'm forgetting one. But its zero or close to it.) My point being, its hard to know how many of these instances are actually incriminating.
Considering the high potential of a WP:BOOMERANG, I highly recommend you change your mind. Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

But what boomerang could come of it for me, I've already served all my blocks for my "crimes" so what are the going to do pin some false shit on me, KWW shouldn't be editing on a public site if he cant be social, the fact that other users have tried to report him before means there must be truth in it or are they going to believe everyone is trying get an innocent user in to trouble? Like i said before i respect you and that is why i came here in the first place but KWW hasn't learnt his lesson. He is still claiming I'm a sock even though i have been proven innocent, even @Anna Frodesiak: another administrator who i trust dearly thinks he's out to get me, and that is my point, i feel bullied by him like, if he could persuade everyone to block me indef whether I've done anything wrong or not he would, how many more innocent people have to get hurt before he gets sorted. How he was ever made an administrator in the first place is beyond me especially when there are good people like @Dusti: who aren't but should be. I feel as though he uses his power to delete articles "he doesnt like" and doesn't care about anyone else. Like the UFC events that have been deleted some of them are really notable and should have a page and all are more notable then some of the shit on this site. --Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the meatpuppetry. The "I didn't know better" excuse doesn't usually fly when its coming from someone who's been here a while (and been blocked before.) And your edits regarding some AFDs and recreating articles, aren't great either. It would be pretty easy for him to start complaining about you, which will just lead to more arguing, which leads me to my other point:
Perhaps more likely than a BOOMERANG, though, is just going to be wasted time. I think you'll spend a bunch of time arguing about it, make no progress, and then just be more upset than when you began.
I'm not saying you can't do it, but I'm saying my prediction is that it won't go well for you. I've seen your talk page, and know that Anna F doesn't think this is something you should pursue either...
In regards to your UFC concerns, if you're unhappy with it, start up a new discussion at a relevant Wikiproject. From what I gather, KWW is just upholding some sort of already established consensus regarding that. If you don't like that consensus, then start up a new consensus to see if it has changed. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for wasting your time, i was going to start a new discussion but where and how, the MMA Wikiproject isn't strong enough to persuade certain individuals. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Kww refers to a consensus against these articles being created. Where was that at? There maybe? Sorry, I'm not sure. I'm not all that famiar with MMA, or Wikiprojects that would be related. I suppose you could start up an WP:RFC on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, i will look into it. In the mean time could you undelete this page please [6] as it can be now it wasn't a page where there was a consensus against it - that was just the event pages, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Anna: I was asked at my talk to comment here. (I read the above fast because I’m sick of wasting more time on this.)

Luke, you want to bring Kww to AN/I? Don’t. Boomerang. Check your block log and history.

Stop fighting. It is a pattern. You are the common denominator. This is your last chance to break that pattern.

I will be back in Haikou in a couple of days and have the tools back and my velvet glove is coming off.

I absolutely simply and completely do not care a whiff about what the next dispute is with you. If I see anything that is not about building this encyclopedia, I will indef you for persistent disruption. Do what 99.9999% of others do here: build the encyclopedia without getting into conflicts. So far, you are a net negative to this project. You have cost us hundreds of hours of reading and writing and I am very cross about that. You’ve given back a fraction of what you’ve cost the project.

So, build! Redeem yourself. Stay away from MMA because all that has been fought over a million times and the community has spoken. If there ought to be a new debate, let someone else do it. Do not argue back. Do not go on the offensive. Build the encyclopedia.

Consider yourself finally finally warned. Anna F remote (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this advice. For the time being, it's really better if you build up as much of a reputation as possible as being a positive contributor to article mainspace without arguing about anything. This doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but even arguing a perfectly logical position under a perfectly cogent argument could be enough to get you indef'd if the community doesn't like your tone. It's like how lots of people speed by over 10 mph on the highway, but if a fleet of cops have their eyes trained on you, it's unwise to push your luck, and it certainly isn't wise to lean out of your window and accuse them through a megaphone of doing their job wrong. Tezero (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not about being right or wrong in each dispute. It is about a pattern of persistent, disruptive battling with relatively few redeeming constructive editing. It is about being a net negative. Anna F remote (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Luke, I've stayed out of this (for the most part). While I agree that the block reasoning itself was bad, technically the end result of the block reasoning (i.e. the behaviour that led up to the block) would have been fine. In all honesty, CIR comes into play here. If articles have been deleted for whatever reason, and they're recreated with the same content, they qualify for speedy deletion. If you repeatedly do this, it comes down to disruption, and ultimately a blockable issue. Considering your tenure here, less warnings are really required because you should know better by now. At some point, someone is going to step up and end up blocking you for this. I like you, a lot. Your intentions seem to be well, and I've spent quite a bit of time trying to help mentor you. Perhaps since I've slacked off recently due to some real life stuff getting in the way I haven't been able to guide you as much. I apologize for this. I'm doing by best to get back on regularly, and when I do we'll pick back up on your mentoring. Your request to have your editing restrictions reduced however, in light of all of this, is denied. I welcome @Anna Frodesiak, Anna F remote, Wifione, and Bbb23: to scrutinize this decision, but I ultimately think that reducing your WP:0RR to a WP:1RR is not yet appropriate. My apologies for this being lengthy, but I feel most of it needs to be said at the time. FWIW Luke, should I have had the tools to block you and it needed to be done, I would still block you (outside of this policy of course)). In the end, we're all supposed to be here for one singular purpose, and we need to all get along. Those who can't play well with others need to be shown the door at one time or the other. Please don't let that happen. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just returned from vacation, and I see that the Luke saga continues. Like Anna, I'm not particularly interested in the merits of Kevin's block. The problem - and it has been a problem for quite some time - is Luke, and, in this instance, his reaction. The leap from bad block to corruption is typical of Luke's petulant and paranoid style. Luke is a time sink, and although I trust Dusti when he says that Luke makes constructive contributions to the project, the net result is he doesn't know how to behave. I would recommend an indefinite block for this latest incident and his past history. If six months from now he thinks he's mature enough to edit collaboratively here, he can then ask that it be lifted with good reasons as to how he's changed. He's had too many chances already.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

POINT confusion

I had thought that this policy was about edits made to articles, using clear sarcasm (including a link to the page where I'm pointing out how VGC does not include statements like this) on a talk page doesn't actually disrupt the article. It's more like how sometimes, particularly since VGC has a section mentioning the GGC, a conversation about one article can be relevant to the talk pages of others.

Like in this case, there is an inconsistency between the GGC page (where it calls gaming culture woman-hating) and the way GGC is summarized on the VGC article (where misogyny is not mentioned). So it is a critical contradiction to go about, even if the approach is a bit bitey, I figure so long as there was no actual bad faith edit (I obviously didn't intend to mislead anyone, it seemed very transparent to me) that it'd be fine... Did I overestimate the transparency? Even without a change of heart, arguing on the basis of inter-article consistency of playing devil's advocate for opposition isn't introducing a bad idea so much as bringing awareness to one already being propogated here. Ranze (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem was that your proposal was so bad, it was hard to be taken seriously. It was very poorly thought out, violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality, and was instantly and unanimously rejected. When you factor in how you've been arguing a lot, and not finding much support, over at the GamerGate article, and it's not hard to piece together that you were just making a bad argument to prove a point about not getting your way over there. Even now, your argument hinges more on "consistency with the GamerGate article" than, you know, actually making logical sense as a point on its own. Like you're trying to make a point about what's going on over there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Fireball24fire

Fireball24fire has uploaded a new image and, like nearly every other image he's uploaded, is completely useless, which he used to replace an existing image on the Lakitu article. I've just asked him to justify his upload on his talk page, so we'll see what he says, but I want to give you the heads up that he's at it again. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, if I could topic ban him from images, I would. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't his previous account (dragon22someting) blocked for stupidity when it came to images? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Something like that, I think. I don't know if he ever officially confirmed it, but both usernames edit extremely similarly. (Bad image choices, constantly tinkering with minor changes that don't really offer any benefit, but don't really hurt things either.) He stopped editing through the other account, and wasn't block evading, so I don't think it was ever really pursued...(EDIT: Never was blocked, but same kind of edits.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fireball's edits outside of images are typically what another editor had referred to as "pecking." While not disruptive per se, it's frustrating to have such minor edits like repeatedly changing "six" to "6" and back again spam my watch list. Fireball (and 22dragon22burn) used to be an editor at Super Mario Wiki (blocked indefinitely from there too, I believe, but I don't know the reason), where they allow endless images for purely decorative purposes, and it seems he's never learned the fact Wikipedia has different policies. He's just not competent as an editor. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I always found his "pecking" to be annoying/pointless too, but there's really no policy against it, so I couldn't really do anything about it. I didn't realize he was blocked at SMWiki too. Interesting. Yes, I do agree that WP:COMPETENCE may be an issue. I don't mean it as a personal attack or anything, it just seems like he has a very hard time communicating or understanding what we're trying to say to him. Even his block reasons are always "I'll never do it again" rather than any sort of defense or rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 15:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Think it's time to revoke talk page access? He's on his third unblock request and it's exactly the same as the others. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I do, and I did after the first one...but I do like the idea of him being able to try again in 6 months, which he couldn't do if the talk page is revoked. Unless it was restored later on...but I wouldn't want to forgot about that either... Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think now it's time to remove talk page access. He's removed his declined unblock requests again, just after I left my simple instruction to not do so. It's obvious he's not going to ever improve; any attempt to communicate will just go ignored. He's reached that point of no return, so I think it's time to end it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Let me know if you ever catch him socking. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you. His editing patterns are extremely distinctive and he favors Lakitu and Mario Kart related articles, so socks should be extremely easy to catch. In that regard, should 22dragon22burn be blocked as it is technically a sock, even though it's been inactive for nearly a year? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see his edits from a mile away. As for Dragon22whatever, I say we wait until/if it becomes active again, and either send to SPI, or block, as soon as the first edit from the account happens (depending on how obvious the edit is actually Fireballwhatever.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI Serge, most editors who lose talk page access due to abuse of unblock requests end up going through UTRS (or BASC for bans). Most UTRS requests, especially after a few months since the last on-wiki event, are treated with significant efforts to try and find a solution to allow the user to come back on-wiki, sometimes/often with strict conditions. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, as I imagine you know, I don't really work much on that side of things. But yeah, if he manages to persuade someone that he's ready to come back, then by all means, I'd welcome it. Most of my indef blocks are disruptive, bad-faith editors who seem to purposely want to cause trouble to content or editors. He seems more like a good-faith editor who He just can't seem to wrap his head around the image policy or copyright (or take our word for it to just stop.) If he ever gets his act together, it'd be fine if he came back. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

only 3 months?

Previously this 77.97.151.145 was banned [7] along with the Technotopia account, since its the same guy editing at the same time. Why not make it infinite also? Mentioned in a sockpuppet investigation before, although its obvious since they only ever edit together the same article. Since he does keep coming back again, having started this with an IP address 11 months ago, and regularly reemerging, might as well make the IP address only he uses infinite block as well, or else we'll have to see him again. See how many times its been blocked in the past? Dream Focus 17:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact link, but somewhere in the blocking policy, I'm pretty sure it says that we're basically not allowed to permanently block IPs, since IPs can be redistributed to unrelated people. It probably could be extended to 6 months or longer though, that's true. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's strongly discouraged to indef IPs (other than proxies), but it's a trend that seems to be catching on. If it is a static IP over a significant length of time, then the block can be long (years), but I generally avoid indefinite IP blocks. In any case, indef'ing the master with autoblock should also prevent contributions from the IP, if indeed it is being used by the editor behind the account. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked and it looks like I marked the "autoblock" box when I blocked Technotopia. So we should be set. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

Hi. Long time no see, right? Now... I would like to ask you this question since my edits on Machine Shop Recordings were swapped back to the way they were after fixing Golu's mistakes that he had made on this website: What is with the edit conflicts when I tried to save the edits on any articles that I edit? I don't really like to complain about this, but this is becoming a problem to me. What is with that? Skylar3214 8:00, 24 October 2014

Hi Skylar. Glad to see you're around and doing well.

In regards to edit conflicts in general, see WP:EDITCONFLICT
Usually edit conflicts happen when one person makes an edit to a page right before you do, so your edit isn't changed because the first one made is taken. But it looks like, according to your contributions, you were the only one editing MSR when it happened, right? The only thing I can think of is, I occasionally "edit conflict with myself" on a page when I click submit, then page loads for a while and I get impatient and click submit again, and it says there was an edit conflict. But when that happens, even though it says "edit conflict", since I was essentially trying to make the same change twice, in the end, it still works, because it just accepts the first edit, which was the same as the second edit. So, if that's what's happening with you, then despite the message, your intended change still would have been made. Does that make sense? Is that what's happening with you? Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Xeno series

Hi! I split Xeno series because there is a Template:Xenogears, it is also a part of Xeno series but did so. Also, the template is for whole Xeno series, but row head "Media" links List of Xenosaga media rather than List of Xeno series media, that's oddly IMO. And last , a reader for Xenoblade would not expect to read Xenosaga anime, so I believe split is acceptable.

That's why I split. If keep in one remain, I hope do something like Template:Final Fantasy series or merge Template:Xenogears into here. Link Xenosaga's music but not Xenogears' is strange. Regards. Blank090 (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after I undid your change, I noticed that, but honestly, I think the Xenogears one should be merged into the main one too. There's only like 4-5 entries. We don't need all these little templates when there's probably less than 20 entries throughout all of the Xeno series. There's just not all that many articles out there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I also feel Template:Xenogears is too small. Blank090 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I've adding the Xenogears info to the series template. Feel free to add anything else to it that I may be missing... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

He was asking for a talk

... and he will just remove it simultaneously with the rest..(Removing stupid IP edits.) I don't know what he is up to. If he has no respect I would suggest that he will be fired. And don't wait for another victim he will be victimizing.124.104.182.35 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, you still need to attempt to notify him. You did not, so I have for you.
While he could probably stand to be a little bit nicer to you,

Your edit here didn't show up right in the article, and you did not provide a source, so he was right to remove your information.
Based on a lot of your comments, I don't believe you understand much about Wikipedia or what it takes to get blocked from editing, so I really think you ought to take a step back, slow down, and do some reading first, before calling someone to be banned... Sergecross73 msg me 22:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I reverted everything as whole because someone kept vandalizing my talk page constantly. But your comment doesn't mention anything about ANI report either. So you are saying that this edit is constructive? You have understand that the content you added won't be displayed even if I didn't revert it. Because you made changes to a infobox template not to the article--Chamith (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

124.104.182.35 (talk)Serge- I wrote a message , it was saved in his talk page and it was just removed... i know he has the power to that but I find it so unprofessional124.104.182.35 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, he could have been a bit nicer. But that is nowhere near needing a ban, block, or even a formal warning. As you admit, policy allows him to do this much, so I don't understand how you could possibly expect him to be banned for such an action... Sergecross73 msg me 22:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

And 124.104.182.35 I didn't mean you when saying stupid ip user. There were 2 IP users who were constantly vandalizing my talk page. I got so annoyed because they made their edits one by one, individually. Your comment was posted in between their edits. So I didn't notice it when reverting. Please check my talk page history.--Chamith (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will take it. Next time don't be so rush. Serge simultaneous annoying comments usually are observed. I just hope it was not sent by the person being annoyed so as to further protect himself and make an issue of blocking people. 124.104.182.35 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Your question

No, I wasn't. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize then, but surely you can see how one would come to that conclusion? You've jumped into a lot of the same conversations with rather similar stances. Its an awful big coincidence. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nu metal

Many sources mixed up nu metal with alternative metal as if they were the same genre, which they weren't. There's significantly more sources for alternative metal than nu metal. Please stop re-adding nu-metal in spite of evidence against it. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That is not your observation to make. We go by what can be verified by reliable sources say. It's how the website works. Your personal conclusion that they've made a mistake, especially on something subjective like music genre, is not a valid approach. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence collected from reliable sources suggests against the band being nu-metal. Sorry.63.155.164.33 (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That still doesn't make any sense. Just because some sources call them other genre, doesn't prove that they're not nu metal. That's a logical fallacy. If a article doesn't mention that baseball is a sport, does it cease to be a sport? Of course not. An absence of information does not prove a negative. I'm not suggesting nu metal is their only genre, I'm suggesting its one of them. There are prominent music sources that back this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You're basing this on opinion, not sources. Look at the sources. A small minority of sources does not justify a categorization that is on its face preposterous. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Its two major, prominent music sources. Rolling Stone (magazine) is one of the biggest music magazines there is. Revolver (magazine) is a large, print magazine as well. Both prominent sources that have strong consensus that they are reliable. I'm sure there's more out there, but 2 big ones like this are plenty. I don't know what else to tell you, other than maybe spend more time figuring out policy and how things work around here. You're off-base here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'm seeing fairly significant sources for nu metal, if you're asking for this to be ignored you'll need a consensus to do so. Do you have a consensus? I can't seem to locate one, nor have I seen any convincing arguments against nu metal. As Sergecross73 suggests, it appears you are acting based on opinion. Яehevkor ✉ 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, since you are being daft, every source is right no matter what the evidence tells you. That means that every band that has ever been called nu metal is automatically nu metal whether the whole of the sources reflect that. According to your rules, the minority rules. I'm going to prove that you're acting based on opinion by adding nu metal to every band where this is debated, and see which one pisses you off the most and causes you to insist that it's a minority opinion. Then you'll be revealed as an opinion-pusher, not an objective editor. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

63.155.164.33, Serge doesn't specifically favor the minority, but when a few major sources that happen to make up fewer than 50 percent of the total source body mention a genre, it's probably worth adding. Think of it this way: it's probably true that a minority of sources used in the Thailand article mention that Thai is the official language. Now, it's true that if other reliable sources dispute that Thai is the official language (though I can't imagine how that'd happen) then those should be included for balance, but that's also true with genres - not mentioning a genre is not evidence of discontent. Does that mean this shouldn't be in the article? As for "every source is right no matter what the evidence tells you"... well, that's not terribly far off base. Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. It's not anyone's fault for enforcing that. Tezero (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Certification on The Marshall Mathers LP 2

There's a problem on the Certifications section for The Marshall Mathers LP 2 by using this link: [8] Skylar3214 11:31, 3 November 2014

Sorry Skylar, I looked it over, and couldn't quite see what the problem was. While I am usually pretty good with all the Wiki-formatting, that chart is a lot more intense than I'm used to. (The type of albums I typically work on aren't the type that receive certifications from 10 different countries, haha.) Maybe a passerby will help? Or you could say something over at WP:ALBUMS or something too... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, whoever did that messed up on it big time. Skylar3214 11:46, 6 November 2014

Re: Video game consoles

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Please note that currently video game console-related articles in WP are already in a VERY inconsistent state which needs to be fixed, as I mentioned in that page. --Cartakes (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that you need to discuss when your changes are opposed, and then only reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the result of the discussion at WT:VG. There is obviously no objection for solving the inconsistencies any more. I have already waited for 3 days and no more message, so I think I can safely assume the discussion is already over by now. --Cartakes (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See, this is why I'm telling you to slow down and learn how the website works. What you want to get is consensus. I don't see that there. No one really took a stance, it was still just you and Ferret arguing. I don't see a consensus for change there, and when there's no consensus, there's no change. In this instance, this would mean your change would not be implemented. You need to discuss further, especially when, again, its something as important as the foundation of how video games are defined and organized. I'm thinking you should stop and not make these changes again unless you literally get the go-ahead from an uninvolved party, like myself. Refusing to follow these protocols could conversely, get you blocked from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not refusing to following any protocols, but certainly I am going to stop now when I am told this is the right thing to do under such protocols. Thanks for telling me about how the protocol (or website) works. But I think there is already a consensus there are inconsistencies. The remaining things may be how to resolve them (I didn't see any objection from that discussion though). --Cartakes (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping. Please just wait a bit longer, to get a consensus on how it should be fixed - if your approach is the right approach. I've notified a few people usually more active in these sorts of discussions, lets see what they have to say. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So I have waited for another day. Can I consider there is already a consensus on a fix for inconsistencies? Thanks. --Cartakes (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there discrepancies between what you're proposing to do, and the things that Tezero, PresN, Masem, etc, are all saying? Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really. What User:PresN's said is almost exactly what I was trying to do in the very first place. The only thing I am *currently* not doing is re-implementing separate templates for each generation of different kinds of video game consoles (but I wish I can (re)do that too, if that point of User:PresN's comment becomes the consensus of everyone). Apart from that I think everyone is 100% agree with my approach so far. --Cartakes (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

PresN started discussing it with him. Get on the same page as him, and as long as you don't any more opposition after that, I'd say go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Xenoblade X

Yo, I have no idea how you message people on here, it's so damn complicated. But anyway, don't you think it'd be a good idea to add the fly over shot of New Los Angeles in Xenoblade X to its Wikipedia page? Just a suggestion, Serge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.82.64 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really deal with images on Wikipedia, so I wouldn't do it, but I won't object to anyone else doing it. If you to go through with finding an image and uploading it properly, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 06:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You can argue with Andrzejbanas now

Since you like debating when someone removes "nu metal" from articles Andrzejbanas did it here. --63.155.164.33 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't sourced. But hoo boy anon, what an agenda you have. ;)Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, removing unsourced genre with an appropriate edit summary isn't a problem, it's encouraged behavior. IP, you just got off your block for disruptive editing. Stirring up trouble like this is going to get you blocked again. I again recommend you slow down and read up on how Wikipedia works. This is about as bad as your three rejected unblock requests. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I understood that you were the one who reverted the List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. The voice actor info was placed there because not all of them have pages on this website. If we can't put them there, where else should we put them? The respectful video game pages? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If they have their own article, it should go there. (Sonic, Tails, etc.)
If they don't have their own articles, but its about video game VAs, the list of characters.
If they don't have their own articles, and its in regards to other media (TV, movie, music, whatever) - that respective article. (So if you're talking about someones VA from Sonic X, that only needs to be at that article.)

So basically, the only additions being made to the list of characters articles, is info on video game VAs for characters that don't have their own article. (If that really is necessary to add, I mean, we're talking about minor roles probably at this point...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi, I wonder is user allowed to copy massive chunks of information to article, which is not directly related to city ? I'm asking this due in Ganja, Azerbaijan article, "Changing of historical landmarks in Ganja" section doesn't directly related to the city and contains information from source which obviously is not well established. Xoncha (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, this subject matter isn't exactly my specialty, and there's a lot of potential variables at play here, so it might be easier for me to help you if you can give me some exact examples/links of the edits in question. Sergecross73 msg me 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I want to remove that section due source is completely biased and completely copyedit information, but I'm worried I can get warning due section blanking.Xoncha (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking it over, I see what you mean - it's just a giant copy/paste job from its source. I've removed it myself on those grounds - people should not just rip entire paragraphs and put them in the article word for word, even if they provide the source. If someone re-adds it exactly like this, it should be removed. If someone re-adds it and properly paraphrased and sourced it, then this should probably be discussed further, as I have no idea if the content is neutral or reliably sourced - I'm not especially knowledgeable on this subject. But anyways, its okay to remove entire sections if there is something wrong with them, and you leave an edit summary explaining why you removed it. But, if someone disagrees with that action, rather than removing it, you should probably discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting again. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I will note that for myself. -Xoncha (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)