User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Indie pop

I knew what it said, but I was following this example. Tell me what you think. Should that look for change too? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, in all actuality, an actual "alternative pop" article should be created, as in current years, that seems to be the way sources describe this newer movement of your "Halsey"s and your "Lorde"s are described. But I don't think "indie pop" is the best way to describe them, and I don't think either term is commonly how late 90s rock albums were described. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking for an Admin to provide the DELETED page of CHRISTOPHE SZPAJDEL

Hi, I'm writing you because I found a contribution you had made on the Black Metal page. If this is an area if interest I am looking to revise / re-create the page for black metal logo designer christophe szpajdel and am looking for his deleted page. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I can restore it to the "Rough Draft" area if you wish to work on improving it, but that being said, the article was speedily deleted. In regular terms, that means that the article was in such bad shape that they felt it wasn't even worth discussing. I would agree - the old version was very promotional in its wording. It sounded more like a bio he'd put on his own website, rather than a neutrally worded encyclopedia article. Sections like this are clearly promotional, especially without a source:

There is clearly a distinct visual language associated with these works. In black metal particularly, there is an unsaid aesthetic representative of the scene; spikiness, illegibility, intricacy, macabre. Christophe has clearly helped shaped this approach.

So, I can restore it, but only on the ground that you'll significantly improve it in the rough draft space before publishing it into the public mainspace. Otherwise, it'll just end up deleted again. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

Yeah, and I kinda agree with you. But the user @Mashaunix: disagree, and sometimes when I try to remove them, he would revert me like he did on the Post-metal article. Now, when I tried to do the opposite, you reverted me. I'm sick tired of such inconsistency and I want to solve this. ABC paulista (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of Maushaunix doing that, or I would have challenged him on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We discussed this disagreement other times, but there is not a consensus on the project. I personally don't see the point of adding images on music infoboxes, but I also don't see harm if the image fully address the genre's main traits. All I want is a standardization: Or all metal articles are eligible to have a image if proper to the subject, or none are. That's why I want him to be part of this discussion. ABC paulista (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, if he won't be swayed, then I can start up a discussion at the music related WikiProjects later in the week too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sergecross73. Don't mean to use your talk page for this, but I agree that we should start a discussion. Thanks for offering to start it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, people can use my talk page for just about anything constructive, really. And no problem with me starting a discussion either. I'd do it now, but my time is limited for the rest of today. I can do it tomorrow though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree too. I could start one, but I don't know where to start it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, so FYI, I've set up an RFC about it here, and alerted a bunch of related WikiProjects. I set up an RFC about another long-running issue here while I was add it too, right below it. Hopefully we'll get a consensus on these things now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Patricia CV has resumed personal attacks

Hi Sergecross. You previously warned and then blocked Patricia CV about personally attacking me in edit summaries. They did it again earlier because I disagreed with an edit they made on Troye Sivan discography. They wrote: "you treat all women on wikipedia as dumb. speak with respect", which is again a completely unfounded and untrue accusation. I don't believe I said anything to provoke this, and it appears Patricia will just continue on doing throwing out baseless accusations and personal attacks despite warnings. Ss112 20:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page. Their comment wasn't quite as hard as in past, but still clearly violating the spirit of the warnings. Checking to see if she has any explanation prior to taking action. I agree that I can't find any interaction that would warrant her accusation. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Civility/AGF question

Hello Sergecross73, Sorry to bother you again, but I need an outside opinion. I have been editing the Intel and AMD pages recently and am having problems. While we appeared to find a partial, difficult consensus on the Intel page; on the AMD talk page it is proving more difficult. I realize the point I am trying to make is nuanced, but I have not seen the other editor budge in regards to my concerns of their current language. I have now been accused repeatedly of bias (once unconsciously) and whitewashing. I'm not sure exactly what advice/help I'm asking for, but this "feels" pretty inappropriate and makes further discussion with this editor very difficult. On the talk page I've proposed beginning again and pinging other editors. Dbsseven (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. I apologize, I've been meaning to respond, but it's been a busy 24 hours. So, as much as I pretty tightly follow the video game industry, chip processors and their developers falls a little outside of my interests, so I don't have a ton of background knowledge on it personally. The discussions seem...pretty lengthy. Is there any way it can be simplified into an WP:RFC question that could be neutrally proposed? And/or WP:VG be notified of a discussion. Sometimes when one on one discussions like this are getting heated and losing constructive focus, outsider input can help things. If people start siding with you, he may take it easy with the accusations. Or if they side with him, maybe it'll help help you see a flaw in your stance instead (hypothetically). Or maybe they'll have a compromise too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sergecross73. I took a step away, but have invited other editors to contribute. Dbsseven (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dbsseven:, frankly, I think you need to examine your own intransigence. The several editors on the main article on Spectre are having no problems with finding consensus and no long talk discussions. And their consensus matches RS. When I took their consensus to the AMD Spectre section, word for word, you reverted it even though this removed the words you wanted removed. Upon reverting, you provided no explanation of why you think the text shouldn't be used. You reverted to text you have spent a great deal of time arguing against. Without any explanation, your revert appears pointy. Also, please keep in mind that false claims of incivility are themselves uncivil and taking such accusations to a sysop without notifying the target seems bad form. You might also read WP:AOBF. I suggest you examine your last revert and see if this really is at odds with the changes you want. O3000 (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: And you are right about me not notifying was bad form. I apologize. I was having trouble for exactly the policy you cite (WP:AOBF), being accused of bias without diffs demonstrating bias. I was looking for advice, as my attempts to address these accusations directly had been unsuccessful. Dbsseven (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Objective3000 is only criticizing your conduct on the talk pages you're having disputes on, I don't think he is criticizing you for coming to me for advice. He shouldn't be, you're welcome to ask me for guidance when you have issues on Wikipedia. It'd be bad if you were trying to WP:CANVASS or WP:FORUMSHOP for me to directly intervene on your behalf of the argument, but that's not what you were doing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sergecross73. I am still confused by Objective3000's accusations with regards to my past edits, but am going to drop it. Best. Dbsseven (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Song on fire

Hi i have Abtin Azizi’s emails to nickelback fanmail 3 months before the release how can I reference this in the page? Jakehumble (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Personal emails cannot be used to source such a statement, and even if they did, I highly doubt that someone has emails confirming that Nickelback wrote a song about them, and even if they did, it wouldn't give them a songwriting credit as you've suggested. Please cut it out. Wikipedia is not the place for playing games like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A potential GAN

I'm rather fond of Blue (Third Eye Blind album) and I admire your work on it. Do you think it's ready for a good article nomination? If so, may I nominate it? Or would you rather do so or see it done at a later time? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It's one of my favorite albums of all time, so I was glad to finally take the project on a few years back. I don't usually do much with the GA process, so I didn't plan on doing it, but in my opinion, I think it's still a B class. Two things:

1. I think the themes and composition stuff needs to be expanded. I'll have to look up my information, because I think I had some researched that I just never got around to adding.
2. I'm afraid a pickier reviewer may have a few qualms with a couple of the claims here and there. It seems you've stumbled across one already. I know it to be true, because of the way I've followed the band and its fansites over the years. But some of the stuff was hard to find proper sources for currently, considering its a 90s album released prior to when music journalism was primarily online.

So, I'd classify it as "not quite there yet". I'll try to get around to expanding it a little more sometime. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounded good initially, but if I can get A Lesson in Romantics and Bleed American (an arguably more notable release) passed for GA the way they are now, I'm almost certain passing Blue would be easy with the way it is right now. Featured article status almost certainly would need more, but that's something I've yet to directly accomplish myself. If it makes any difference to you, 11 out of my 19 good articles are albums, if you don't count the one FA I assisted with. I think I know what a good one looks like. You still have the right to say no if you'd like. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your ability, I'm just going to be upset if some super-picky reviewer chops the hell out of the article. Its up to you. Just let me know if/when you go ahead with it. I'll try to be around to assist and help with the reviewers concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Given how badly the album flopped, a reviewer is likely to be sympathetic. I'll do a bit more work but I really do think it's quite close. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Question: Found this, but don't think I know how to format this one. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice (if not scathing) source find. Isn't there a "cite magazine" template? And your link would muster up most all info needed for that? I often just write in the <ref>''Spin Magazine'', February 2000 issue, pg 110-112</ref> but I don't usually care about formatting refs or GA standards either. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Gaming Age

Is the website Gaming Age a reliable source or not? If so, then why? 107.77.231.101 (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The last discussion on it was in 2012 - so it may be best to ask at WT:VG/S and see if opinions have changed. But the opinion back then was, that it was only usable if the specific article was written by a specific writer - one with credentials of writing for other reliable sources. But I'm just relaying the information here, I'm not real familiar with the website personally. It would be good to note that, Neogaf, which originally spawned from Gaming Age, would definitely not be reliable - virtually any messageboard/forums fail WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page Protection at Kart racing game

Could you do me a favor and protect this page? There is an anon that keeps re-adding bad information from an unreliable source. In short, a 2012 article from a site that the video game project does not consider reliable stated that a Taito game called Crashing Race was the first game to feature "vehicular combat." Unfortunately, in subsequent years some more reliable sources like Ars Technica decided to parrot this source, which may be why our anon is being insistent. Reliable sources also show, however, that the game play of Crashing Race is exactly the same as the 1975 Exidy game Destruction Derby. Taito licensed from Exidy in this period, and Crashing Race is almost certainly a licensed version of the Exidy game. Whether it is or not is immaterial, however, as reliable sources show that the game play between the two games is identical and that Destruction Derby came first. No matter how many times I take this out, the anon keeps adding it back. Indrian (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've protected it for a week. I don't doubt or challenge you or anything, but please start up a discussion on the article talk page about it, for future reference (even if its more or less what you just told me above.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do. And thanks! Indrian (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Capital D for "discussion"

I don't really care either way. If you're going to take over the page like it's yours, then go right ahead. However, I missed no instance of de-capitalising a "d". Don't claim things are there that aren't. Please, by all means point out one instance in that section, which is all I edited, where I missed de-capitalising a "d" and made it inconsistent. I missed one initially and fixed it myself. Ss112 15:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ss112 - Who said anything about "that section"? I was talking about the 20+ instances you left unchanged in the reliable source section. Don't complain about claims I never made. Yeesh. I'm spending hours and hours searching through archives to look for past discussions and consensus to improve the WikiProjects documentation of reliable and unreliable sources, and you're giving me heat for this? Unbelievable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for what you're doing with WP:ALBUMS. Getting a list of reliable sources together, as you're doing, with links to discussions, will save a lot of time in the future for reviewers. It is much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, I figured it's helpful for everyone, myself included too, as it makes arguments more solid at WP:AFD and things like content disputes too. I'm not sure how complete I'll be able to make it - I can see myself burning out after too long - but I imagine anything I do is better than nothing, and I can always come back to it over time too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism pt 19

Serge's 19th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you see may need intervention. Ferret may also answer queries, as we're both generally pretty active and on the same page when it comes to policy. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• UnknownPro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Monstercat, own Talk page, and User talk:Jd22292: Persistent addition of original research even when logged out followed by a refactoring of my warning and a fake warning on my own Talk page. Possibly WP:NOTHERE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was slow on this, but Salv took care of it in the end. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Minecraft mods has experienced a lot of vandalism recently. I think it might need protection. JOEBRO64 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The page history is a bit rough, but it looks like there's only like 1-2 instances in the last week or so. I think it's best to wait at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know how to actually block any anonymous IP's from doing such vandal edits, of which something I should learn to do when IP edits get way out of hand. But one thing I really get bothered about is the fact that people are frequently using single digit numbers like 2015-1-5. One such IP that's doing these edits is on a spree on List of Virtual Console games for Wii U (North America) and the links to these are: here, here, here, here, here, here and others ahead of that. Would strongly recommend a page protection please, if you can. Or a block, whichever works best against users like those. I will keep a close eye on that page from now on. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Zacharyalejandro: You can't block anyone, you're not an admin. And not using 100% valid dates is not vandalism. It's really about time you understood the difference between good faith edits that might not 100% meet guidelines, and bad faith vandalism. And besides that, the {{Dts}} template doesn't require double digit months, and its documentation gives examples in single digits. The entire point of the template is to format the dates so that they correctly sort in tables. Nevermind reporting some edits from an IP over 10 days ago who hasn't edit since, and you gave no warnings or advice to. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, as ferret says, this isn't vandalism or a blockable offense, and even if it was, unless its something insane like "death threats" or "blatant hoaxes", you need to generally have discussions with other editors/IP before they're blocked. It doesn't appear that you've made any effort to notify the other person of your objection of their edits - a discussion should be had at the article talk page and/or the the respective editor/IP's about your concerns. Zachary, I appreciate your efforts to populate the video game lists like you do...but it would probably be good if you did more reading up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You don't seem to know the proper protocol for some of these scenarios... Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• 163.153.134.32 (talk · contribs) Been making disruptive edits at Windows 2000 and other articles. JOEBRO64 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 weeks, registered to a school system. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Can you block 189.222.23.34 (talk · contribs)? They're a long term vandal that adds hoax cancelled game categories to articles. Their behaviour was recently brought up by another editor at WT:VG: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_132#Unreleased_game_vandal. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. Shame on me, he disrupted a page on my watchlist, but I never checked his other edits. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• 180.251.121.85 (talk · contribs) Keeps changing Yasunori Mitsuda's birthyear from 1972 to 1971, despite his website not stating this. The user also changed Ken Hirai's birthyear to 1971 as well, so it seems to be a theme with them. Also note 125.164.159.210 (talk · contribs) who did the same edits in the summer. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 180.254.53.34 (talk · contribs) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I looked at this last week, but forgot to respond. I can protect the page, considering the IP hopping, but considering this person is clearly playing the long game in this, there really should be some sort of effort to discuss on the talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Well I can try the next time they do this, but his edits directly conflict with what Mitsuda's official webpage state (among other sources), and they have made no effort to communicate in the past, so I don't think it will change anything. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
        • I know it's not all that likely, but at least so that you can say that you tried. Just a quick "This is his birthday, per his webpage. Any reason this is being changed?" type thing on the article's talk page. If you do, I'll protect next time it comes up. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• 88.109.48.39 (talk · contribs) Received a final warning and continues to vandalize Sonic '06. In fact, the page itself might need protection, since it's been targeted by more vandals lately. JOEBRO64 22:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Someone else gave him a short block that has already expired. I'll do a longer one if disruption starts again. I don't want to protect the article yet just because all the recent issues have mostly been from the same IP. I can protect if other IPs start causing trouble too though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Vandal MySuperBelt has returned as a another IP to vandalise the Mafia III article by removing information about the MacOS release. He will likely will keep continuing to vandalising the page until the page get protected. His IPs have been blocked multiple times but nothing seems to work to stop him vandalising the page when the article is unprotected as he keeps returning with a new IP. Is there anything you can do to stop vandalism from this guy?. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I can re-protect the page and keep an eye on it for a bit. Just to confirm, since I'm not familiar with the finer points of Mafia 3 - there's nothing particularly contentious about this Mac OS version, is there? Sergecross73 msg me 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not that I'm aware of, the user is just repeatedly removing the information without any reason, acting like the port doesn't exist. TheDeviantPro (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, I've protected it for 3 months. Let me know if it expires and is needed again, or if a suspicious new account just happens to start removing it... Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• User has just sockpuppeted and has vandalism my talk page with TheOldSuperBelt. TheDeviantPro (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
• Just keep reporting him to me, and I'll keep blocking and protecting as long as I have to, no big deal. Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've extended the protection to two years. The protection log has over 6 protections related to this, no need to expect he'll give up. I almost went with indef. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• 96.91.247.201 (talk · contribs) Mass editing release dates without sources. TarkusAB^talk 22:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks like Andy. Pretty large crossover on previously targeted articles: User:The1337gamer/sandbox/Andy. Rollbacked all their edits. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the proper section to put this in, but if you look at this IP's contribution and talk pages, you'll notice a lot of bad edits. This is because this IP is used by a community college, and as such has a high number of users. Would it be at all possible for you (or another admin) to block this IP from editing, but not from creating accounts? The intent here is to stop my classmates from vandalizing pages and making poor or bad-faith edits anonymously. 140.198.160.63 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, you've come to the right place, and yes, that is something I could conceptually do. And I appreciate you saying something like this - it's not something someone would normally request. However, with the blocking policy on Wikipedia, without boring your with the little details, is supposed is supposed to be done like right after an IP address or account was being disruptive. The edits from your IP address, while historically bad, really hasn't been all that bad in recent days. So ultimately, while you're right about everything, it may be best to wait until right after there are bad edits coming from it again. Please notify me in the future, if this IP address, or any others from your college, are being disruptive right after it happens, and I will look into it then, and may be able to take action. Let me know if you have questions. (And if any of the Admin who watch my talk page feel I'm being too cautious here, feel free to follow through on his request, I would not object.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello; another user on this IP is insisting on blanking our talk page, including removing the {{Shared IP edu}} template from it, which I believe is needed. Additionally, the IP 140.198.160.64 is also registered to the same college. I added the {{Shared IP edu}} template to that talk page, but the same user that has blanked this IP's talk is also insisting on removing the template from that page as well. I feel like something shifty is going on here; is this acceptable behavior?

This is relatively minor, but (again, I'm assuming) the same user has undone my minor edit to Wikipedia:Patent Nonsense, where I changed "speedy deleted" to "speedily deleted", and I must confess that I've gotten in a minor edit war over it. 140.198.160.63 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems bizarre that two people would be using the same IP back and forth, minute by minute, but regardless, it appears another admin have gotten you IP blocked for 6 months, so I suppose this is resolved... Sergecross73 msg me 18:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2601:192:101:F393:E99D:236F:819C:35BC (talk · contribs) making many unsourced changes, some nonsensical. Generally regarding Namco and fighting games. TarkusAB^talk 04:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
• Would you mind protecting Knuckles the Echidna for a bit? There's this vandal who keeps adding that he's "from Uganda" to the article, and he's hard to stop because he's constantly IP-hopping and more recently creating accounts. JOEBRO64 23:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• It looks like someone beat me to it. But let me know if it persists beyond their 1 week protection, and I'll expand it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, it's good it got protected when it did. JOEBRO64 00:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good lord, I didn't realize it was blowing up like that. Ugh, let me know if full protection is needed if things get really bad... Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's picking up again. [1][2] JOEBRO64 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like Ferret beat me too it, and did pretty much the same thing I did. Hopefully the silly memes die down in the next 3 months (though maybe that's wishful thinking with the Sonic fanbase...) Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Actually saw this after heading for the prot button, cause I had just blocked one of them for vandalizing other articles. Protected 3 months and indef blocked several. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• 86.245.82.103 (talk · contribs) Keeps removing content from the lead of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith regarding criticism to Hayden Christiansen's performance, despite the fact that it's well sourced within the article. Their reasoning is that it's "harassment" against Christiansen. Would you mind at least giving them a warning? JOEBRO64 20:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected, as there were some other poor looking IP edits within the last week or so too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sonic Spinball needs protection, as it's been hit with a string of vandals over the last few days. I'm unsure why, perhaps it's another meme or something? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The page was just the TFA, that's why. The bot responsible for protecting TFAs messed up and protected it a month early, which is why it wasn't protected today. JOEBRO64 01:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• That makes sense then. And it seems Oshwah has been banning the IP users who were vandalizing it, so a full page protection isn't necessary anymore I think (unless it keeps up). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Justinzimmer3434 (talk · contribs) New sock of the hoaxer Justinzimmer868. — Zawl 19:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • and two more - Justinzimmer48 (talk · contribs) Justinzimmer028 (talk · contribs) — Zawl 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Serge blocked first, I got the other two. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• 72.223.87.144 (talk · contribs) is being disruptive as he keeps removing valid sourcing on the Trent Murphy article, stating it's "biased". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Protected, didn't block, so maybe he'll come discuss on the talk page, as you've asked him to do on the IP's talk page. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Can you block this LTA again: 64.26.97.60 (talk · contribs)? They continue to add unsourced dates to article. You blocked them twice last year. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done -- ferret (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
• Please block 66.250.190.35 (talk · contribs) for adding unsourced dates. TarkusAB^talk 14:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Done. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I was wondering if you would like to work on the this draft I've been trying to work on, or at least give me some tips. I think it needs more writing and references. Please let me know. Thanks! Ramesty (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree, it just needs a lot more references and content - it's pretty short on both right now. You might want to try writing more about the series collectively too, not just the individual games. Some good examples are articles like Final Fantasy, Tales, Xeno, etc. There's a bunch out there, so look around for ideas. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I know this isn't your responsibility, but I wondering if I should combine three sections. Specifically, I'm thinking I should combine the games section, the plot section, and the very first sentence of the draft into one section. Do you agree? Let me know. Ramesty (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey there. I've started a request for comment that you might be interested in – feel free to have your say when you get a chance. Thanks. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've commented. I hope it goes well for you. I've recently been scolded by some odd editors, ironically, for trying to clear up some long-running issues in the en-wiki music world. They're wrong to complain of course, but it didn't make them any less of a headache. Hope they don't bother you, and if they do, stay strong if they give you trouble. Its good to try to find resolution in this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)