User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RE

What,NO I would never,not again!74.178.177.227 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If you say so. On one hand, you seem to be trying harder to contribute. On the other hand, it looks like you're creeping towards WP:NOTAFORUM issues again. (What makes you think Wikipedia is the place to ask for advice on what you should write a personal letter about?) Not to mention, you're still IP hopping all the time. The only reason you've ever given the past for not making an actual account, is because you've believed it kept you immune from being permanently blocked. (AKA you wanted to cause trouble.) So, now that you are being a good editor, in theory, that shouldn't be a concern anymore. And yet, you still haven't made an account. And that's fine, no one can force you to. It's not a requirement. But it kind of says something about your intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

First of,I'm sorry about the letter thing I didn't know,second,I can't CONTROL HOW WHEN OR WHERE MY IPS GOING TO CHANGE,I told you guys that and I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE TROUBLE,So your telling me that an acount will make it clear of what I'm here to do?74.178.177.227 (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You making an account would make it easier for me, and probably others, to believe that you have better intentions now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Chrono Cross

Hi Serge,

Thank you for contacting me on this issue. While not written in a policy or guideline, there are two standard naming formats for lists of characters depending on type. If the article is list-class, its title should take the form "List of x characters". If the article is article-class, its title should take the form "Characters of x". All of the lists of characters that are featured follow this convention; there are five lists of characters that are Featured Lists (List of human Sesame Street characters, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, List of Uncharted characters, List of Naruto characters, and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters) and there are two lists of characters that are Featured Articles (Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). I noticed that the Chrono Cross list was declared list-class on its talk page, so I altered the title to match the appropriate naming convention. Are you looking to submit the list for featured list candidacy or featured article candidacy?

Neelix (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on remodeling many articles in the past, but this is the first I've ever worked on an article regarding a set of characters like this. Even with your examples, I'm rather confused. I don't see the difference between, the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters. I don't really see how they came to these different names unless each had different sets of people coming to different local consensuses or something. Or am I missing something?

It's not like an issue or anything, it was more just that I had been trying to model it after the various "Characters of Final Fantansy", articles, just because the subject, content, and medium of "Final Fantasy" and "Chrono Cross" are pretty similar. I've looked through the article's history, and it looks like it's pretty much been in awful shape since it's conception years ago, so I didn't really pay any mind to anything that had been established prior to me starting work on it around a month ago.

Anyways, your thoughts are welcome. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Serge,

To be honest, I don't see much of a difference between Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters either, but the fact that these two articles follow different title formats is only an indicator of a much more important distinction between how the two articles are treated differently; one is able to become (and has become) a featured article, while the other is able to become (and has become) a featured list. If the lack of difference between these two articles is to be addressed, it should be addressed at that level rather than at the level of title format. I would be glad to see a discussion form about transferring either the FA character lists to FL status, transferring the FL character lists to FA status, or more clearly defining what the difference is between FA character lists and FL character lists. Either way, a clearer distinction between article-class and list-class articles should be made so that it is easier to determine which articles are potential candidates for FA and which are potential candidates for FL. Would you be interested in participating in such a discussion?

Neelix (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do find this interesting, and would like to know the answer myself. (and/or to define it more clearly if it's not already.) However, I don't think I can fully commit to directing the conversation in the next week or two. If you want to initiate it, I would definitely contribute, but if you don't feel strongly enough to initiate the discussion, then I'll do it, but probably not right away. (The article is still a long ways from being complete, so I don't need my answer right away anyways.) Thanks Neelix! Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Serge,

If you are willing to initiate the discussion, I'd be grateful. I'm pretty busy with other discussions right now, including an FAC for an article I created, so waiting a couple of weeks works well for me. I look forward to sorting this through with you then.

Neelix (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we're on the same page here. I'll be sure to notify you when I start this up in a couple of weeks or so. Thanks Neelix! Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RFA nomination

Please remember to opt in to the extra edit counting tools following the instructions shown here. -- Dianna (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination! I will do my part in a few hours, later in the day, when I can fully focus on it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Go for it, Serge! Best of luck in RfA! --McDoobAU93 20:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Supervote

Kudos for not taking the bait for a supervote in Q15 on your RFA. Consider that in some cases you might have a greater impact as an editor who !votes in those cases instead of being an admin who waits to close it ... assuming you trust another admin to do the right thing :-) Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, here and at the RFA. (And regarding your "bonus points" part, for what it's worth, it did cross my mind at one point to mention the possibility of joining the AFD as a normal participant instead of an Admin, but was afraid that may elicit "Well, you don't need to be an Admin to act like that" type responses, so I didn't include it in the final version of my post.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pick your poison :-) —Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Q17

Hi there Sergecross. As you may have seen, one of my comments in your RfA has proven to be a bit controversial with another editor, and they've based an RfA question on it. It's being discussed both in the "general comments" section of the RfA, and on my talk page, so just be aware of that. You may want to hold off on the question pending the result of these discussions, but how you handle it is ultimately up to you of course. Anyway, best of luck! Swarm ^X 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. Thanks for the heads up. I've actually been monitoring the conversation from my smartphone, but since it's kind of difficult to type much with it, I had been merely using it to read, as I usually do. Now that I'm back on a computer, I feel that, while I don't like the question, it could turn out to be more detrimental to ignore, so I'll probably at least comment a little on it. I still appreciate the comment on the talk page though, thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my above comment was moot, as Townlake declined to alter the question, but more importantly, your answer was excellent. Just forgetting that it involved me at all, it was a tricky question and I'm thoroughly impressed by your clear and level-headed response. My concern was clearly unwarranted. Well done. Swarm ^X 06:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

sorry

I'm sorry.... 75.147.56.74 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, it's not a real big deal. Thanks for cooperating. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

DM Ashura

He is also an avid Sonic fan [[1]],and goes to GMC[[2]].~Tailsman67~ 98.71.52.245 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot something,[[3]],[[4]].03:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk)

So it looks like you've provided me with some information, without asking me a question. What sort of feedback would you like on all of this? Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we use this in anyway on his page.74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It looks like most of this is regarding the fact that he's a fan of the series, and makes unofficial fangames. That's not terribly important, (It's somewhat WP:TRIVIA, which is to be avoided.) I'm also unaware of the reliablility of some of those sources. (Sonic Retro, for example, is a WP:FANSITE, so you typically want to avoid that as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

I am going to jump the gun by three hours and say that there aren't going to be 23 new opposes without any additional supports by then. Congratulations on adminship. Go Phightins! 23:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've seen many of them go rather brutally, so I'm really happy/relieved/honored mine went so well. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You rock...now can I get you to block ..... LOL jokes - good job and good luck.Moxy (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, good luck with your new duties! The RFA is at its endpoint and it looks like you've passed very well. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Impressive RfA. There are strictly zero Oppose rationales. Only one rationale-less Oppose and one "leaning Neutral". As close to 100% as it gets! I must say your answer to the incredibly loaded Q17 was also a high point of this RfA. Salvidrim! 01:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Yeah, I'm glad I ended up answering #17, I almost didn't, in fear it'd have the opposite effect of turning everyone off. But in the end a lot of people complimented that one. Also, thanks for your "Strong Support" and kind words, Salvidrim! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

In regards to my edit adding 'near-universal' to Skyward Sword, my apologies for not realising such a consensus had been reached.

From User:DarkToonLink —Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for being understanding about it yourself too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thank-you!

A beer for you!

To show my respect for your contributions DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol,you got to be over 23 to drink,need to see some user id please.74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Over 23? Where is that the standard? Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

21,your good my man,drink up.;)74.163.16.121 (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
Message added 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Mass title changes

Hi there,

Sorry about the mass title change. I wasn't aware that there had been any real thought or reasoning put into the titles of the video game articles, and so I thought it would be a fairly minor thing to re-title them.

My reasoning is well-meaning: Most information on any product or other item have a main article describing the thing itself, and as a sub-set of that, the article has a history section. If the history section is particularly large, then the article is split into two: A main article describing the product or other item, and a history article, describing its history. The point is that there is normally only a history article for something in addition to a main article for it, not instead of it.

When looking up the article for "First generation video game console" / "Video game console (first generation)", I noticed that it didn't exist, and instead redirected to a history article. Furthermore, the "history" article contained many sections that didn't describe the history of first generation video game consoles, but rather described features of the consoles, or lists of the various brands of game consoles.

It made logical sense to re-title the articles, and to add a "history" section to them (as half of the information in the article wasn't "history" information). The logical alternative is to simply create another separate article for the non-history-related information, and leave the "history" articles as they are. What do you think? I'd love your advice, as you seem to have a lot to do with video game articles!

InternetMeme (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest doing a full multi-page Request move involving all the pages. It can be hosted here at WT:VG and notifications posted on all relevant articles for convenience's sake. :) Salvidrim! 21:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty high-tech and cool means of doing things : ) Also, looking at the articles again, it occurs to me that the reason they're all titled as "history of x" articles is that they probably began their existence as one large article called "the history of video game consoles", which was at some point split into the articles we see today. However, in their new form, and as they have developed, they are no longer structured as "history" articles, which is why I think their titles are now somewhat incongruent and obsolete. What do you think? Also, do you think it makes sense to re-name the articles, and to add a history sub-section to them? InternetMeme (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to voice an opinion either way before having had time to fully analyze the situation, but when I'm home tonight I'll be happy to check it out, and even start the RM using your rationale above if it hasn't been done by then. :) Salvidrim! 21:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I was just saying that it should be discussed. I've tried to change various things in the past too, it's been impossible because to change much about the history of video game articles because no one ever agrees on anything. As such, I'm thinking if you bring it up at WT:VG, they'll have reasons as to why it's named the way it does. Similar to what Salvidrim is saying, I'd want to reserve judgement until then, because there's probably much I'm not thinking of at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that's okay too. If there's a reason for them to be named the way they are, that means they're outside the scope of what I want to do, and I can simply create separate articles for each of the video game console generations that cover the non-historical aspects of them. InternetMeme (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you'd probably want to discuss doing that too, or others may decide to merge it into the existing articles. (That'll probably be my advice to you if/when you plan on working on such a mainstream, popular, and far-reaching topics such as this. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The things I'm wanting to write about are all the non-history related aspects of the consoles, such as a list of the main systems, specifications, the most popular games, etc. All stuff that it wouldn't make sense to merge into a history article. Also, each generation of consoles are pretty significant, so it seems odd that they don't have their own articles already. I'm pretty sure this is because people have just been putting all the information into the history articles instead, because there's currently nowhere else to put it.

Here is a good example of what I'm getting at:

1. The article on Steam engines
2. The article on the history of the steam engine

The stuff I'm interested in is in the category of the first article.

InternetMeme (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that, as popular of a topic as this is, that this isn't already covered either in the history of video games articles or elsewhere though. I mean, there's the generations articles, the articles for the specific articles for the systems and games themselves, and articles like the List of best-selling video games. I don't know what you'd write that isn't in those articles, or wouldn't be best done by improving the existing articles instead. But again, by all means, propose your thoughts to WP:VG and see what they have to say too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to say whether or not the information has been covered. I'm more sort of getting at the fact that the standard way to do things is that you start with an article about "Subject x", and if it gets too big, you eventually split it into two articles, one called "Subject x" and another called "History of subject x". So it is never the case that you would have an article called "History of subject x" without first having a parent article called "Subject x".

Somehow though, due to the convoluted evolution of the video game articles, we've got a situation where we have an article called "History of video game consoles (first generation)" without a parent article called "Video game consoles (first generation)".

Do you see how that's odd?

InternetMeme (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I don't feel like one is a requirement of the other. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try putting it another way: Have you ever before seen a Wikipedia "History of subject x" article that doesn't have a respective main parent article "Subject x"? I don't think it's ever happened. InternetMeme (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is really the only type of "History of" article that I actively work on, so I'm not aware of any precedents one way or another on this. It's okay though, you don't especially need to convince me of this, I, like Salvidrim, are kind of neutral on it, until we get some more feedback on this. That's why I keep on suggesting starting up a discussion on WP:VG. I noticed you still haven't done this. Are you opposed to this? Or would you like some assistance with it? I can get it started, link you to where that is, and then you can describe what you're proposing to do. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Actually, I'd be very grateful if you'd help start a discussion. I don't know where the main project page is, and user Salvidrim suggested submitting an RM, which I don't really understand. My three main reasons are:

1. I don't think there are any other "History of subject x" articles that don't have a parent "Subject x" article.
2. There is quite a lot of information in the article that doesn't fit into a history section, such as lists of consoles and specifications. This kind of information would fit into a "List of subject x" article or article section, not a "History of subject x" section.
3. The names of the articles are very long: "History of video game consoles (first generation)" is a lot longer and more awkward than "Video game console (first generation)". An article with the second name could simply have a "History" subsection, and have the applicable information moved into it, which would fit very well with the Wikipedia standard layout (a parent article with a history section). Obviously, if the section grew large enough, it might eventually be split off into its own article with the current article title, just as we might create a "List of video game consoles (first generation)" if there were a large enough number of consoles in that generation.

Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to my ideas and help me understand things!

InternetMeme (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikiproject Video Games at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Renaming_the_.22History_of_video_game_consoles_.28eighth_generation.29.22_articles - I'll let you describe what you want to do, so I don't misconstrue your viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, it's been about 48 hours now, and it seems you haven't presented any sort of case yet. Have you had a change of heart? Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Off TV Play DYK Nomination

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I have nominated the recent article you created, Off TV Play, for a DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Off TV Play. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all! A week ago I was contemplating if I could even make a reasonable article about it, so I'm glad it can be used for something like this. I haven't dabbled much in these DYKs yet though - is there anything I need to do on my end? Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested in participating in the DYK project go to WP:DYK. There's a bit of reading, but the project is always in need of new reviewers. For this particular DYK, I've already done the nomination, so there is nothing more we'd need to do at this point until someone reviews it. If the reviewer notes any problems, you or I would need to correct them, but if there aren't any then it will get approved and show up on the front page at some point. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll keep an eye on it too. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

REnaming

• I have seen many articles that have phrases like that in then.
• True.
• Not true, alot of my edits are things that involve Jason Griffith,anything that is anime or manga,things to do with computers,and this thing rite here

1. Yes I still don't have an account and I don't care about banned/block,for that isn't the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.16.121 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you've "seen phrases like that in other articles" - all that means is that it should be deleted there too. You've been instructed before not to put stuff like that in Sonic articles.
• What is your reason for not having an account then? Half the time you sign your name as "Tailsman", so it's not like you're trying to be anonymous... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure there was a source on Sonic Retro for the phrase.

• Hey I'm a pre-entrepreneur,but that's not the point,I don't want an account because it's a waste of time,I won't be here long.~Tailsman67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sonic Retro isn't a reliable source, they're just a Sonic fansite. So even if they did say that, which you don't seem to know, it's not really useable. You need something more reliable,
• Regarding getting an account, from my memory, you've been here over a year posting as various IPs, and been saying that you "won't be here for long" for months as well, and yet still somehow here, so I really don't believe the sentiment of "I won't be here for long." Additionally, an account costs nothing, takes very little time to set up, and could very well be used for this supposed short amount of time you claim to be here, and then never used again, if you're as busy as you claim you're going to be. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm saying Retro is where I got the phrase.

• This month is the last month,if ya hear me after that I'm alive,what's the point in getting an account when at the end of the month you won't need it? Listen the only reason I came back was to make peace with my banners.~TradeMark67~ 74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• You're free to make that choice to not make an account, I'm just saying I don't believe your intentions or excuses. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no excuses my dear friend.74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What part of "it's a waste of time" or "I won't be here for long" isn't an excuse?. Look, if your comments are just going to degrade into nonsense again, we're done here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

image

[[5]] there,the discussion, anything you wanna add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have responded there. I'd advise you do to the same, since you haven't even given a fully thought out reason for the change other than your extremely subjective "it's better". You haven't even said why it's better... Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hey Sergecross73, Congrats on the successful RFA. I see you have came a long way since I last saw you after the Minetest AfD. Anyway, I am wondering if you would be willing to review me at my newly opened Editor review request at Wikipedia:Editor review/John F. Lewis. If you could throw in your opinion and maybe look at my deleted contributions with your administrator abilities that would be great. Regards, John F. Lewis (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I don't really have the time at this exact moment, but I'll definitely help out soon. Sergecross73 msg me 02:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered your question at the ER. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Generations Of Chaos: Pandora's Reflection

Hey, I am really disappointed that you completely reverted my changes on this article without discussion, mentioning this in the comments or openly doing a complete undo. I added valid, correct information, based on hours of on hands experience with the game and I corrected the "look and feel" entry according to the references and my experience with the game itself. It has been plain wrong cited before, stating falsely it "controls" like KitN", while it clearly says "it looks and feels like KitN" in the referenced article. You relisted the article as an orphan, but failed to acknowledge that I have linked it at the Sting Entertainment wiki page. I will undo your changes, please start a discussion before reverting correct entries next time.Feinmotoriker (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits seemed pretty uncontroversial, and didn't really seem to need discussion beyond what I left in my detailed edit summary I left. My actions were not wrong, they fall well within WP:BRD, it was merely one simple revert. The only part I really objected was the "look and feel" part, which seemed like original research, I just removed the rest because you made a number of changes in one simple edit. I'm find with you reinstating most of the other changes. Other thoughts:

1. You are correct, the orphan tag didn't need to be there. I'm fine with removing that.
2. This edit you keep on making here and here doesn't make any sense. No "quote" or mark is necessary there, that originates in a typo I made in mine when I originally made the article. Please stop re-adding that.
3. You need not try to add your signature to your edit summaries, as you keep on making in edit summaries like this one. You don't sign edit summaries with the~~~~ marks, only do that on talk pages.

Let me know if you have any other concerns, though again, I don't believe your level of "disappointment" is warranted here. These were very minor edits/changes. Sergecross73 msg me 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to explain your edit, but you failed to convince, it still feels like an inconsiderate revert, hidden as an edit. You could have checked how much I changed and could have changed just the one expression which you objected in one simple edit, but you didn't, you removed all changes I made, even the good ones, bit by bit.

1. The removal of its orphan tag is only subject to the article's orphan status, not anyone's personal approval.
2. I am not re-adding nonsense quotation marks.
3. Thanks for the signature advice, I'll keep that in mind.Feinmotoriker (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're taking things so personally, it's very simple what happened. The fact that you made the original edits on an IP address with no editing history, and added information in which clearly violated original research (The "Look and Feel" comment - Something you've since removed from the article yourself, so I assume you acknowledge that it was not a good addition.) made it look like you didn't know what you were doing, so all your changes were reverted. Did some minor "acceptable changes" get reverted at the same time (like the part about the "Impact field"? Yes. If you don't like this, I'd recommend not making so many changes in a single edit. But most of the other changes, you've re-added, and I haven't challenged. So I don't see what your problem is. Some other thoughts:

1. Regarding the orphan tag, I wasn't saying you needed my approval, I was just saying that I was fine with it's removal. (You know, like clarifying that it didn't need to be discussed further.
2. Regarding "non-sense quotation marks", I have no idea what you're argument is on this. You clearly made this edit. Its undeniable. Additionally, it was entirely unnecessary. That mark did not need to be there. It was a typo. Those marks are used for Wiki-formatting - to make things bolded or italics. That extra one you restored served no purpose. Thus, my comment on how it doesn't make sense for you to do.
3. If you keep editing Wikipedia, I'd recommend not taking things so personally, and to assume good faith. It'll make the experience less stressful for yourself and editors around you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nickelback page

It seem like you changed the Nickelback website and decided to put a genre that they are not. Since the wikipedia of Nickelback has been saying Pop Rock for 2 months now it is easy to forget about that. It did not started like that and it was never pop rock in the mentioned. Nickelback music is not Pop Rock. Pop Rock are artists like Maroon 5 or Avril Lavigne. Nickelback are not included in there. Wikipedia has to be more real source than a false source. Nickelback music is not Pop Rock. Also I am new here on Wikipedia. Thank You.

1. For future reference, you want to make sure that, when you message other users, you write on their "talk page", not their "User page". So, for example, with me, you would write me a message at User Talk:Sergecross73, not at User: Sergecross73.
2. Regarding the topic at hand - the genre of Nickelback - one of the main principles of Wikipedia is that information should be based off of what can be verified by reliable sources. As such, a reliable source would typically trump your personal opinion. In situations where you don't agree with the source, rather than removing it without any real discussion, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page, especially if someone has challenged (re-added) your change (that's what I've done). So, in this case, you should start a discussion at Talk:Nickelback, and only remove the information if there is discussion that leads to the consensus (agreement) that it should be removed. Please follow this. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you want me to start a discussion for you. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

The Best Selling lists are a joke. You have certifications - even though most countries did not have them in the 1960s, and many didn't have multiple platinum awards til 1980s. "Claimed" sales are cited - but that can be anything in the media or online. Emphasis is on 'consistency' but not 'credibility'. Coachtripfan (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Why did you chose a "beer" as the best medium to tell me this? And why say this again, you've said virtually the same thing up and down the talk page for the article in question. Did you think I didn't see it the first 5 times? Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Off TV Play

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

RE...again

I find it rather offensive that you call me IP,but anyway Serge this guy has been blocked before,I would hate to see him get blocked again because of this,you should agree with me,is it not like what you and Salv tried to do to me?.74.178.177.48 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't have an account name, it doesn't make sense to call you by Tailsman or anything else - that doesn't make any sense to anyone else. As such, the label "IP". As far as the rest of what you're saying, I don't know who you're referring to. What "Me and Salv" did to you was get you blocked for disruptive editing and block evading, something you definitely deserved, so if you're referring to that, then this other person probably deserves it too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm talking about Eik Corell!74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As you can from his block log, he was blocked due to edit warring. That's undoing anothers edits over and over again without proper discussion or consensus. I imagine he deserved it, usually that sort of things is prety cut and dry. Your advice to him on his talk page was not only totally irrelevent to why he was blocked, but also downright terrible. No one is going to get sued for contacting an internet provided as he spoke of, and this is not the type of thing that Jimmy Wales concerns himself with. Suggesting to go to him is like suggesting you call up Bill Gates about minor PC issues - higher ups like them don't take care of little stuff like that. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Like the Ip wants people to know who he is.74.178.177.48 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't know or care about that. I'm just saying your advice was bad both in concept, and in relevancy. I imagine we're just about done here now; this is just about the point where your comments typically devolve into nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry may be afoot

Hey Serge. Had another IP, 63.134.188.237 (talk · contribs), pop up and add in the number of titles to the tables at List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America). I've undone it since we're still discussing the matter on the talk page. However, I decided to take a look at the geolocation for this IP and the one we've been dealing with on the talk page already, 50.121.115.151 (talk · contribs). The 50.121 address comes from Terra Haute, Indiana, while the 63.134 address comes from Paris, Illinois ... sounds like not a big deal, until you see that these cities are separated only by a few miles and the Indiana/Illinois border. Also, I've had past dealings with this IP editor on this very page, if you look at their talk page. I believe there is a reasonable chance this editor may be using multiple IPs to try and get their way. --McDoobAU93 15:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that's quite the collection of warnings on the talk page for an IP. I'll give another warning, and see if they persist after that (or if it looks like the one person is clearly trying present himself as two people) and take it from there on whether or not further action be taken. Thanks for letting me know, and I'll definitely keep an eye on it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

He's at it again under another IP, this time at 67.219.94.174 (talk · contribs). Geolocation is in the same basic geographic area, western Indiana/eastern Illinois. --McDoobAU93 01:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Even stranger, he's now editing List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (PAL region) to change the subheads to match exactly what he's railing against on the North American page, as shown here. We may need to consider a block to protect the project since his edits are getting very disruptive. --McDoobAU93 01:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world would be do that? How strange... I'm only on my phone at the moment. I'll look into blocking if he is still acting up when I get back to a computer. Thanks McDoob. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on, but he's at it again ... --McDoobAU93 05:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)