Jump to content

User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Vandalism in Multiple Console Articles

Serge, could you do me a huge favor and put some protection on Playdia, Panasonic M2, Atari Jaguar II, The 3DO Company, Casio Loopy, Apple Bandai Pippin, Jungle (console), and Atari Panther? There is an anon repeatedly vandalizing them with false release date information for cancelled and Japanese exclusive consoles and now some nitwits that have apparently never edited a video game article in their lives are accusing me of edit warring for removing patently obvious vandalism. Thanks. Indrian (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I started to...but is it just the same IP every time? If so, then I think a block would solve it easier (which I've done - I find it hard to believe that someone, in good faith, could believe that all these unreleased/rare consoles were released at all/in this regions. I've blocked but asked for explanation. If the IP actually has a good faith explanation, I'll unblock him, but if not, the block will remain. If he block evades, let me know, and I'll proceed to protect the pages... Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. The anon has used multiple IPs (see also 86.154.53.1 and 87.112.105.146), but maybe the block will set him straight. Indrian (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He's back. He's leaving the console articles alone for now, but he is vandalizing SimCity 2000 by adding a non-existent Genesis port. Definitely the same guy, as the original edit was made under the IP you blocked and the most recent edit was made by an IP address he used previously on February 16. Indrian (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected, blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism on Henry Kissinger

So, I know this isn't your subject area, but I was wondering if you could help me out with regard to a recent surge of vandalism and POV-pushing spam by IPs and single-purpose new users on Henry Kissinger, who served as National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Basically, Bernie Sanders recently attacked Kissinger (and, by extension, his Democratic rival Hilary Clinton, who is friendly with Kissinger) in a recent Democratic presidential debate, and since then his article has been constantly flooded with tendentious criticism and edit wars, which is particularly problematic given our responsibility to remove potentially libelous material per WP:BLP. (See, e.g., edits like this and this.) As can be seen from the edit history, the page was protected for one week on February 14, but a new edit war with an IP that has been repeatedly reverted but refuses to desist or make their case on talk suggests a longer period of protection is needed. Thanks in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected, because it's apparent there's a dispute there. I'll probably have to do further research on this if I need to extend it though... Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 11

Add requests for Serge's personal AIV/RPP below. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Haha yeah I knew that was coming up but forgot about the date. That'd do it too :) I think someone meant to preemptively protect it for that reason, but missed a checkbox, because there's a sysop protection in place for moves. Yeah, here. Strange that the bot protects moves but doesn't apply semiprot. -- ferret (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe he has at least 3 registered accounts now. Does that warrant SPI? He doesn't really use them to support each other though, just to block evade. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure but these three IP's might also be him: 71.46.56.68 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.65 (talk · contribs), 71.46.56.6 (talk · contribs). Seems like more than a coincidence that they would crop up the same day I notice the new account. They are changing IP address frequently similarly to before the range-block, they are making changes to previously targeted pages (Level-5 (company), Marvelous USA, Q Entertainment, Template:Dragon Quest series, Sony Computer Entertainment, Tenchu: Shadow Assassins, Advance Guardian Heroes), and similar style changes to before such as categorising redirects. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
He's continuing to make changes and I'm pretty much certain it's him now. Similar changes on 505 Games and Taito Corporation to previously blocked IPs. He's probably found a way to circumvent that range-block. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Welp, here we go again. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Another: 71.46.56.28 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
All blocked and reverted. Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Another 71.46.56.4 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Another 71.46.56.57 (talk · contribs). Maybe as well just request range block on 71.46.56.XX. Pattern is already established. --The1337gamer (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree, its definitely him, and there's a definite pattern to the IPs used too. I still haven't quite got a grasp on range blocks yet though. The editor who helped last time, Berean Hunter, hasn't edited in 2016, so I don't think he'll be around to help. Looking back, he said he recommended talking to Jasper Deng for help on range blocks, who appears to still be active, so I may try to discuss with him. Thank you for helping in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Another 71.46.56.1 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Blocked, request for help made. Sergecross73 msg me 22:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Serge, choose these contribs and then click on block. Replace the "71.46.56.7" in the input box with "71.46.56.0/24" and then treat like any other single IP. Personally, I would make that a hard block to prevent account editing through that range but that is up to you. 71.46.56.0/24 will block the 253 possible addresses in that range or another way of saying it would be that all of these contribs for 71.46.56.* will be blocked.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, what a pleasant surprise, I had gone to Jasper Deng on this because it looked like you hadn't been around since about a month ago. Glad to see you around. I did as instructed, and so far, it seems to have worked. Thank you, I appreciate it. I've got your notes in my talk page archive, and will work on learning this stuff for myself down the line. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It'll be good for us to keep an eye on them, though I don't think its quite so bad/overt to start blocking on sight or anything. (Which I know wasn't what you were even suggesting, I'm just giving my 2 cents.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. Just one to watch for. The previous report is in Archive 40. This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Returning troll. @Eik Corell: As information, this IP and related ones have been reverting other editors in the last couple months for VGSCOPE related cleanup as well. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
86.187.173.156 (talk · contribs) is actively making the same reverts. This one has reverted me 5 times now, after 4th warning. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • They stopped for a while, but have done it two more times since you wrote on their talk page: [1] [2]. Unsure if they didn't see your message or if they're just straight-up ignoring it, but yeah.--IDVtalk 01:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've given him a final warning, just in case he missed it, though I find it hard to believe he missed it, considering user accounts get notifications on talk page messages, and I find it hard to believe he doesn't understand, considering its a simple concept and I didn't "template" him, I explained it out. Anyways, any more, and he's blocked. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 31 hours, which seems to be pretty much the "going rate" for basic edit warring and nothing else. (Though, had I noticed this one, I probably would have made it longer.) Let me know if it persists, and I can block again or protect it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The difs I've seen make it look possible, but I can't confirm it yet. I mean, from what I've seen, he's not writing entire reception sections about how "hawt" a well-endowed fiction female is, for example. Do you see something I haven't yet? Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Check histories for articles the IP has edited today: Maki Genryusai, Nakoruru, Mai Shiranui, Baby Bonnie Hood, Hsien-Ko, Cosplay, Blaze Fielding, Kitana, Mileena, Mortal Kombat controversies, Dead or Alive 5, Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate, Dead or Alive 5 Last Round, Ayane (Dead or Alive), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), Helena Douglas, Hitomi (Dead or Alive), Leifang, Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Gargoyles (video game), Hugo Troll Race, Valis: The Fantasm Soldier, Valis II, Valis III, Valis IV. They all have edits from Niemti or one of his blocked socks. Geolocate says the IP's location is Poland, same as Niemti. When the IP adds references to articles he doesn't fill the citation template, instead he adds a {{Bare URL}} template to the article, same as Niemti. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Protected the page, gave the IP a final warning. (He got templated, but not specifically warned of 3RR, so, as wrong as the IP may be, I don't feel he was aware enough of 3RR to block him over it yet.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As long as it was addressed somehow, that's fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We seemed to come to an agreement on his talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I see, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I think Czar or someone pinged my attention for some assistance on someone regarding that once, but I'm not actively involved in all that. I think in the example I'm thinking of, it was more about the fact that the IP was actively harassing an editor by reverting their GR edits over and over again, and I objected more on the ground of it being harassment. I think WP:VG made a bad choice in their decision in handling GR, it creates a lot of busy work and edit warring that I find has no overall benefit - so I'm not particularly interested in maintaining all of that. Czar was pretty gung-ho about it though, so you always run GR-related stuff by him. I mean, I can't/won't act against active consensus, its just that there's others who are going to be more motivated to look into it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment... I don't think it's proven to be that bad, other than some internal project back and forth. The major IPs that focus on populating aggregators and keeping them up to date have mostly caught on and seem to be following things appropriately for the most part. -- ferret (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
That's good to hear. I guess I didn't mean "bad" as much as "unnecessary". I just don't have a problem with GR being there, and I didn't think any effort was really worth enforcing the change. But to each their own, I don't mean to restart the debate or anything. If things are falling into place, then I'm glad its working out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The user continues to ignore what I've said on his talk page and edit summaries, and keeps re-adding GameRankings to the Firewatch and XCOM 2 articles. Since it is violating a clear guideline over and over, wouldn't this be considered disruptive? I've had to remove them multiple times now. Ferret is right that most people are catching on to the new guideline, but then you have people like this who ignore them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Protected for a week each. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Same guy: 77.96.101.235 (talk · contribs). Look like he's returned to an old IP, block log says you've already blocked him 3 times on this one. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. That block log is depressing, seeing that he's been wasting our time for about a year now. Even more depressing for him though, he's been doing this for a year and has virtually nothing to show for it... Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Same guy 90.208.222.253 (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Same guy 86.139.89.148 (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Carvin Corporation needs protected. IPs are redirecting it to variations of Kiesel Guitars. I'm very familiar with the situation between the companies. See my talk page section about a split needed. But the redirecting needs to stop. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks like his last attempt at least removes all of that "iconic" and "unforgettable" wording, so I think you guys have gotten through to him some, at least? If he does more of this, let me know and I'll warn him, but I'd hate to give him a stern warning when he's actually potentially complying and making progress. (Which I don't believe he was until after you wrote this, so I don't blame you for coming to me.) Keep me posted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It is, though thanks for the heads up, as I hadn't noticed it yet. When I first read this, I had assumed that that Jg guy was block evading. Not sure if its better or worse that the hardcore WP:GENREWARRIOR guy has returned after 9 months instead... Anyways, I'll keep an eye on it. Your input is appreciated as well. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Please advise

Sergecross73 Mate I need some help with a potential problem, that seams to have been added to the Administrators page already, as when I went to add it via the talk page involved it said their already was one but I can't find it. This User:Mlpearc 'person' is doing there best to be as rude towards me as possible, even after I put a explanatory on their talk page, about me being new and still learning. I had User:Shawn in Montreal help me out the other week when this other user did the same and I went off my head at them, which I wont completely apologies for due to their attitude also, but it got put in it's place and all moved on. This 'person' is something different. As I said, I have tried to put up a Admin Indecent about the issue but it already has apparently, according to the notice that popped up when I tried to do so on the new section page, but I can't find it and I've had no notice put on my user talk page as per the wiki Regulations on such matters, so.....?!?. Seriously, I'm trying to get the play of the game here, so to speak, and become a useful contributor to music especially, but with a******s like this, acting the way they do with the way they speak in such a blatant antagonistic and rude manor, and yes I bit back to begin with and I have again with this 'person' (eventually, after said notice on his talk page of an explanation, which was ignored obviously), it is not conducive to my ongoing niceties on here or staying a contributor, and I very strongly feel that this 'editor' is out of line with their manor on here in general, after reading their talk page history.....Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference Talk:Motörhead#Genres. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It hard to follow everything going on here, but in regards to the discussion linked to by Mlpearc, Wikipedia goes by what third part reliable sources say. First-party accounts are okay for objective, non-debatable facts (album titles, release dates, etc) but not subjective matters, like genre.
Nuro, I'm sorry you've been eating opposition with people, but I think it's because your discussion comes off as rather aggressive. You keep talking with an authority that you do not have, whether it be telling people that they need your permission to do things, to stating things that just aren't based in any sort of Wikipedia policy or precedent. (Like stating that the only thing necessary to determine genre is the word of an artist.) I can't make you slow down, but I hope you will, before you upset too many people and find yourself in more arguments, and either loosing the motivation to edit, getting a temporary block and being unable to edit. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I accept that I'm not a 'soft' person in general, and I am doing my utmost to actually conform to the 'norm'. What seams to be lacking in this entire situation, that others have responded to, is that I have quite bluntly stated that it is because of the attitude of the others involved as to why your have seen the reaction that i have given. I point blank expect respectful dialog for any reason at any point under any circumstances, from the start. Hence my reaction. The person in question here, and the other one already dealt with, is why we are having this conversation. You are not a select, Elite Click, unlike the behavior, in the main, that I'm experiencing and seeing first hand by various 'contributors' to said debates; And yes I use the terminology that I have because I'm not a keyboard warrior and do not tolerate such disrespectful behavior by anybody, especially in writing, at any point in my daily existence, let alone personally in the street. I say that with an honesty that is quite genuine, in that I do not think my s*** don't stink, to use a very Australian saying when examining ones honesty as a human being, and non of this would have happened if the other two individuals involved had a modicum of genuine, honest person to person respect, and any sort of actual, real, manners in the first place. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, respect works two ways. Case in point is that you changed the genres on the Motorhead page first and then started to argue about it on the Talk page. The underlying principle of wikipedia is cooperation and consensus. Respect that and people will respect you. Happy editing. Karst (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
On principle I have no problem with that, or even being reminded to do so myself, and in the last two weeks I've honestly learned that particular lesson, it still does not excuse the attitudes, in writing, that are very obviously held by the people in question. I'm trained in assessing such subtleties, to be honest, and smell it a mile away. Does that matter? Not really I suppose. I'll take the rather large hint I can see being put before me, by some of you, though, and continue as best as can be with damaged Ego in tow. Nuro Dragonfly (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

OK i got it .Jg9443 (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Harrison

Hi. Can you say a bit more about why you removed the page I created today about Stephen Harrison..Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedavrobson (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Please read through User:Sergecross73/Why was my article deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool dispute

Can you help with this bullheaded user He has already been reverted by three different users [3] and made 4+ reverts in the last 24 hours. It is causing a disruption to the article and it shows a lack of respect for editors.. He should be told that he can't have absolute control over any article, and can't edit war no matter what.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You & your good buddy are entering information into this article that states on the 9th weekend of 2016, Deadpool became "the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016." This statement is FALSE. The film did not become highest grossing R-rated film on the date you entered it under. Either learn how to place the information into the article where the statement is true & learn how to add your reference source to the article or I will continue to remove your edit so that the article is not stating incorrect information. Purposely entering false information into an article IS vandalism & you are being bullheaded by constantly re-adding this information into this article where you have been constantly told it is not a true statement. Just because you are being childish & revert to calling me names (article nazi? really?) doesn't make the statement you want to enter into the article any more truer. We have a responsibility as a WP editors to make sure WP articles are as factual as possible. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, please, everyone, calm down, and no more name-calling. Can't we just find a source to clear up this discrepancy? This is a hugely popular movie, so I'm sure many sources must clarify this, right? Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Jim Chappell. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer}} (Not watching this page)

Unbelievable. The waste of time in sending this to DRN is astounding. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Brain freeze challenge

I believe that made a credible claim of significance; created by a notable person. Nor do I believe the thing itself came under any A7 category. Adam9007 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Being a game created by a Youtuber in itself, not a credible claim to importance. Youtuber's do all sorts of crazy stuff, but that doesn't mean it worth a stand-alone article. This is compounded by the fact that there was only one source present - a Youtube video made by the subject, and zero third party sources present. That's a complete failure of the WP:GNG - there's not a single independent source making any sort of claim of importance.
  • See WP:CSD A7 - "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events". Its a game he plays in his Youtube videos. That's like the definition of "web content". I'm not alone, considering RHaworth came to the same conclusion.
Honestly, I'm far more concerned that you felt it was appropriate to recreate this article in this shape. Are you not familiar with the WP:GNG? Did you really feel it was appropriate to recreate recently deleted articles with zero independent, third party sources present? Or recreate sentences like "Thank you, America ;)" in the article?. Seriously - emoticons and addressing America in an encyclopedia article?
Please, no more article recreations in that terrible of shape, continuing to do this will be considered disruptive. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're confusing me with someone else; I didn't create the article. Anyway, it wasn't just any old Youtuber, it was a notable one. He had articles on several language Wikipedias if I remember right. Sources are also irrelevant for A7. And I still don't think it's web content; you could claim anything's web content if one can video it and put it on Youtube. Unless I'm thinking of another article, but I'm sure it's this one. Adam9007 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, I though it looked like you had recreated it, but you were just the one who declined the speedy. Sorry about that part. I've stricken that part.
  • Beyond this situation and this conversation, you may need to re-evaluate your understanding of "credible claim to importance", (especially considering the result so far.) Probably WP:NOTINHERITED too? A sentence defining the subject as "a game that a youtuber plays on their videos" is hardly a claim of importance in any sense. It only a claim that it exists, which is not enough. The "claim to importance" should somehow tie to the notability standards, that's what we're ultimately checking on here, and that's why sources help determine this. For example, if The Today Show did a nationwide segment on it, then yeah, I'd decline the speedy instantly, because the fact that a news publication focused on it specifically is a credible claim to importance. The content left in the article, honestly didn't even put in a credible claim that it was a notable part of his show. It was nothing more than a bare-bones statement on what it was.
  • I'm also still confused as to how this is not "web content". Is he known for doing this game in any other context other than for his Youtube videos? No sources or content in the article stated otherwise. It may be a game he plays in real life, but it seems to strictly be for video streaming purposes as the end goal. That makes it web content.
  • Also of note, looking at the deleted page history, the article had received 3 speedy deletion taggings, and 2 actual deletions, over the span of about 24 hours. I really think that says something about the inappropriateness of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
You're the third (possibly fourth) person who thinks that by removing an A7 tag, I'm implying inherited notability. I am not. A7 clearly states (but not clearly enough it seems, as you're not the first person I've had this conversation with) that its standard is lower than notability. Significance/importance is not the same as notability. It is (they are interchangeable) a lower standard. Significance is, as I understand it, anything that might establish or lead to notability. In other words, A7 is not about having no indication that it does meet WP:GNG, it's about having no indication that it might meet it. There's a difference, and being created by a notable person is a credible indication that it might meet notability guidelines. The Youtuber, if I'm not much mistaken, had an article not only here but on several other language Wikipedias, so I think it's a safe bet he's notable. WP:A7M, although an essay (some people, incredibly, think I should just ignore it on that basis), lists many common claims of significance (some of which might even be claims of notability), and being created by a notable person is one of them. If you look through my talk page, and here, you'll see that there are people who agree with me. I'm thinking about formally proposing a change in wording, as significance/importance is too often confused with notability. Adam9007 (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I take that into consideration too though - it's just that it comes down to the subjective call on what is a credible claim to importance or significance is, and I just dont feel "game a YouTuber made up and plays" is a credible claim to importance, significance, or notability. I mean seriously, how prevalent of a subject is that for a stand alone article is that on Wikipedia, and if any exist, what sort of shape are they in? Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No matter how notable the person is? Adam9007 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
To me, this article seems comparable to having an article about the chorus of a song, or an article about a particular joke in a sitcom or something. Could it be mentioned somewhere in a parent article? Sure. The Youtuber's article was relatively short, someone could work it in there. But as a standalone article independent from the subject? I just don't realistically see a path (or credible claim if you will) to that. I can restore it to a draft if you personally plan on improving it, but I can't restore it to the main space in that state. Sergecross73 msg me 23:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for finally shutting up in our recent little debate over at the talk page for final fantasy-0. I see that you fairly large contributor to japanese video games and also an admin here on Wikipedia. Rather than debating me over obvious subjects in which you are not being truthful of, and which you are incorrect, please take those moments to evaluate how factual the articles in question should be. Wikipedia is not your personal advertising platform. Generally editors contribute to wikipedia for various helpful and selfless purposes. But you, I honestly believe you expect something in return from contributing so much. You definitely expect certain articles to be biased, which is not ok. I am really going to ride your ass hard until dawn and edit all your work and put everything you have under scrutiny. Once again, please evaluate the factual nature of such articles. Being factual is the number one priority of articles here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - i own you :^) Andiar.rohnds (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As I already stated, I did not write the game's reception section. You can check the edit history yourself. - which edits of mine do you feel were overtly promotional? I don't work for Square, nor do I have any connections to them, nor did I even personally like the game, so your accusations are completely unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So here's where we're at:
  1. You need to assume good faith. No more unfounded accusations.
  2. You need to knock it off with the combative comments. "Thank you for shutting up" or "I own you" comments are not civil or constructive. Discuss the issues at hand, and leave the rest out.
  3. If you continue to, or follow through on your threats, to harrass me, we'll be going to WP:ANI. Judging by your history with your block log there, and the fact everything you're arguing about violates WP:USERG and WP:RGW, I doubt that would go well for you. (And that's if a (talk page stalker) doesn't block you first, you're being so flagrant here, I wouldn't be surprised.) I recommend you stop with the games while you're ahead. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


LOL pathetic. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You also really need to watch that little mouth of yours, friend. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL

Nice, I knew it would come to this. To you just removing the entire section in talk, for petty technical reasons. But I honestly don't care. [[[Yawn]]] Andiar.rohnds (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how it's my fault that you can't formulate an actionable, rationale proposal for change, but if you don't wrap things up real quick here, you're going to be blocked again. Stop wasting people's time with these rants. Propose specific changes supported by reliable sources, or drop it. If you want to complain endlessly with vague complaints, go head off to a message board or start a blog or something. It's not for Wikipedia talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the one making endless, frivolous counter arguments against an article which is obviously biased and with very strong possible commercial interests. The subjects I touched go much deeper. It would be impractical to provide sources on everything and you know this. Every key argument I made can still be backed up with credible sources, but that would make the discussion even slower for me. It would take forever. It's very difficult for me to write. This is a discussion, not a wiki article, not everything needs to be etched out in concrete facts. A little common sense would have gone a long way there. Common sense is something which is actually listed under wikipedia policy, and it's something which you are definitely and conveniently ignoring. Unless I'm mistaken and you are genuinely incapable of understanding simple concepts, and well (very well) established facts within the video game world, which you seem to be knowledgeable in, but are conveniently ignoring. I also have a specific way of putting my thoughts down first, then editing them to be better. I have to do this or I cannot post at all. But the entire section was removed while I was still making clarifications and corrections. So there was never really a chance to finish my case or even provide sources even if I wanted to. I could get the section back up. But honestly, I don't care at this moment. I am not going to sit here and deal with such people with an obvious agenda. You are a policy shopper for convenience, and you ignore common sense and logic. Andiar.rohnds (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_42&oldid=1143297415"