User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

RE: A couple things:

No problem, and thanks for your help as well. Yeah, the #96 IP is not mine, and I explained why I don't do that sort of activity on Metalvayne's talk page. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Mustasch

What man,you didnt even check the links to verify if they are working or not?anyways,I'v added a source of Nuclear Blast,their record label. Metalvayne (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert you based on the source's accuracy, I did because you removed sourced information without any sort of explanation. If you're removing a source because it doesn't work anymore, you're supposed to leave an edit summary explaining why you removed it. Or, conversely, find a new source. Considering how much you like to tinker with genres, totally disregarding sources, I hadn't checked to see if that one worked... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

yes,that was really stupid of me. Metalvayne (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Just thought you should know...

You have good taste in colors. DanielDPeterson + talk 11:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks, you too! I had actually seen your signature around somewhere in the past, and had taken notice we used the same colors too, just never mentioned anything about it. :) Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sonic 4 Plot

Zagurzem: Hey, it's me again. Only four more days until Sonic 4: Episode II comes out! Anyways, on the 15th, I am planning to finish the plot on the Episode Metal and Episode II sections. I understand that you want me to keep the plot as short as I can, and I'll try. But you do know that the plot will be a bit meatier than Episode I . I agree, Sonic 4 doesn't have the heaviest plot, but I do need to put some depth into it so readers understand, but as I said, I'll keep it as simple as I can.

Also, can the Episode Metal section of the plot merge with the Episode II plot section? The reason why I think this could be is that because Episode Metal is just a bonus four-act long game that comes with Episode II. I should just combine the plot with Episode II's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I'll be around to trim it down if it gets too detailed too. I'd support merging of plots as well, just as long as it stated that the Metal plot points come from Metal in a sentence or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem: What do you mean by "just as long as it stated that the Metal plot points come from Metal in a sentence or something"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just meant, if you delete a subsection that says "Episode Metal", then the first sentence regarding Espisode Metal should probably start off something like "In Episode Metal, event X happens to person Y", subbing in actual plot points for the X and Y stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Gordon J. Key

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon J. Key.
Message added -- Trevj (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for easing the process on this one. Hopefully some further sources will be found some day... but in the mean time, at least it gives a bit of basic info. Cheers! -- Trevj (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Sonic 4 Image

Zagurzem: I saw that you changed the image section to include both Ep I and II's logos. This is a good idea, but there's one problem: The Ep I logo doesn't have the "Episode I" subtitle underneath it, while the Episode II one does, making it kind of lopsided. Can you fix this and replace the Ep. I image with one that has the subtitle for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do that, another user did. I did think it was a good compromise between our earlier argument. However, I'm not much of an image person; Wikipedia has complicated restrictions/protocol with images, and even if it didn't, I'm don't especially desire to do image stuff, so I tend to stay clear. I don't think the "Ep 1" missing is that big of a deal, I'm happy enough with it as is. If you're that hung up on it, I guess you'd be better off asking someone else for help. (That is, if the image you speak of even exists. Do you know that it does?) Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

T-0

You do not add in pure speculation from a random journalist under release information. Do it again, and I will report you. --68.230.252.5 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1UP.com is not just some "random journalist". I recommend you use the talk page to discuss than continue to edit war on the Final Fantasy Type-0 article. --MuZemike 23:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also recommend that you try to adopt a more cooperative attitude, because this warning appears to be quite confrontational and almost aggressive. Civility is key to harmonious relations and productive editing. :) Salvidrim! 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MuZemike and Salvidrim for responding to this. I don't understand what the IP is so worked up about either. 1up.com is considered a reliable source by Wikiproject Video Games at WP:VG/S, the source and the wikipedia article both clearly articulate that it's a rumor, it's not like it's a false confirmation or anything, and it's a pretty common sentiment, I'm pretty sure I could find a number of other reliable sources that would say the same thing.

Also, for the record, not sure what I would be "reported" for, I only reverted once, and with a detailed edit summary, and it's certainly not POV-pushing; I'd personally prefer they didnt release it on Vita, as I own a PSP, and don't plan on owning a Vita any time soon. I'm writing it according to the sources, not my personal feelings. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sonic 4

I'll split up the articles! CaseyPenk (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

Cheers man. People need to learn that if they make comments they regret they shouldn't make them in the first place. Яehevkor ✉ 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Judging by some of his other edits, he has a rather warped view of Wikipedia ...there's a lot of things he should probably learn... Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent revert at Talk:Wii U

Regarding this, it's not like I was instigating unbecoming original research or something. Can you show me why WP:NOTAFORUM should apply? There, it says "that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles". Now, having an official quote pertaining to a section of the article that needs improving / clarification certainly would serve that aim, would it not? Obviously, the information could only be used once present as a source that meets the required standards. (What if I had written this: "I know of book x that I think could make an excellent source to clear up y, but can't find it at the moment. If there is someone out there who has it, could you please check out whether or not it's helping in the matter?" Would you consider that verboten, too?) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It didn't look appropriate because you addressed it to "video game journalists", not editors, (Wikipedia Talk pages are not the place to try to contact journalists or the press.) and you asked a random question about the topic without actually addressing the actual article at any point.

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but with the way I read it, it looked no different than how people sometimes go to talk pages to ask inappropriate questions like "How do I get my PS2 to work?" or "How do I unlock X character for Y game?". You can re-add it if you want, but if you want to avoid others removing it too, you may want change your wording, so it's more about the article, and it doesn't sound like you want answers to a personal quiery. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's about this (within "Post-announcement"):

On July 5, 2011, when asked about whether or not the Wii U was going to support 3D, Iwata told Mercury News, "If you are going to connect Wii U with a home TV capable of displaying 3-D images, technologically, yes, it is going to be possible, but that's not the area we are focusing on".

I can see how my edit may seem inappropriate, but again, I'm not asking for someone to go find something out and then immediately put it into this article. It would have to be published somewhere first. So, actually, I was addressing journalists, but not to edit here, but to garner data that later on could be used by editors. Given E3 is currently underway (where there are folks at hand who possess the information this article presently lacks) and since Wikipedia is read by many people, including professional scribes, it seemed like a good opportunity to direct attention to the issue. So, I don't know, maybe it was against policy to do that, but I've yet to be shown how. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, your intentions seemed to be good, it's just wording seemed more like one of those "personal queiry" type of posts where a user is using a talk page like it were a messageboard. Had you given the same quote you just gave above, and asked if there were any other sources that clarified what the quote meant, for example, I never would have given it a second thought. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning review sites

Hello. Feel free to read and supply commentary to this discussion concerning several review sites. Thank you. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have more to contribute. Let me know if there's anything else I can do... Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick Perri

Hey man, with all due respect I put back the changes that I actually spent time making. I didn't hurt the article, that's for sure. Even if it's not perfect, it's way better now. All statements have relevant sources. I doubled checked them all. Buy simply "undoing" the changes the article actually goes back to being worse. Doesn't make sense unless you have a vendetta against this page / guy which also wouldn't make sense. I appreciate you reaching out to me on my talk page. I tried to list my changes on the Nick Perri talk page but I don't think I put them in the right place. I'm new to this whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathdealer101 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your changed because you keep on removing templates without addressing the issues. For instance, you removed the "BLP unsourced section" tag, after you removed a sentence. That doesn't make any sense; no sources were added, so it's still an unsourced section. The tag needs to stay. Secondly, just because you removed some sentences, doesn't change the conflict of interest situation; the article is still largely written by that George Summer guy who clearly has a conflict of interest. Don't remove that tag.

Here's another example.

In the article, it says Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles under the moniker "Nick Perri Music",.

You then changed it to: Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles.

Again, that's not handling things the right away. The correct thing to do would be to add a source, not remove half the information, and then remove the CN tag. It's still unsourced.

Ultimately, I'm not against all of your changes, but so many of them are done the wrong way, like the ones above, that it makes more sense to change it all back. I'd suggest, until you learn more of the policies of Wikipedia, that you make smaller, multiple edits, so all of your work doesn't get changed back due to just some mistakes. Sergecross73 msg me 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, you're the first person to come up with a rational reason to not include the Neil Gaiman edit

Aha. Now we get a reason, finally...that's what it took? Your observation that it only LOOKS like him in the video may be a reason, but I hope you see you're the first to bring this up. You didn't say its too old, or poor quality, or that i was vandalizing...congratulations. 66.87.2.85 (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the other editors were making a lot of valid arguments as well, but regardless, I'm glad you understand my explanation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I do believe I said that personal observation does not make a reliable source. In any case, I'm glad the point has been understood. LadyofShalott 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and I believe another person said something awfully similar too. In fact, I almost didn't save changes when I wrote the message because I felt it was too redundant to what other people were saying. But hey, it worked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Super Smash Brothers (Wii U/3DS)

Read the quote back over a little more carefully. "[he] can't say that it's entirely out of the realm of possibility that some Capcom character could appear in the next Smash Bros. The big problem, though, comes from the idea of trying to get characters from a completely different universe to fit with the style that has been dictated by Nintendo's characters in a fighting game." When he says "characters from a different universe", that doesn't just extend to Capcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.200.178 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, after I reverted your change I noticed that your change actually was more in line with what the source said. I think I initially misinterpreted your edit because of your edit summary here, which seemed to suggest that the impossibility of a more than one third party character from a third party, which is not suggested in the source. But your actual edit didn't really reflect that part of the edit summary either, and your actual edit was correct. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal Crossing (Nintendo 3DS)

Sorry about my bad behavior. I responded to you on my talk page. I don't know how to link back to it, but I'm done trolling, and it's time for me to start editing like a normal human being :) I just made a recent edit to the AC3DS page and I honestly think it's a productive change, because it corrects a few glaring grammatical and punctuation errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.123.111 (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nintendo 3DS Homebrew

My reply:

1. Well, can we try to get the community to do more with it? Like maybe make a WikiProject to bring some attention, say it needs editing ASAP? You see, 3DS homebrew is all I hear about now. I get on 3DS forums, and I these are the post titles I see:

"Anyone know of a 3DS flashcart? Need 1 ASAP."

"Pokemon Steel (3DS fangame) Project - N33D C0D3R5"

"Top 10 3DS Homebrew Games of 2012"

2. Pokemon Crazy Diamond DOES deserve its own page, I just need images first.

3. I know you didn't delete my image. The guy that did said it violated Nintendo copyright because it's called "Pokemon Crazy Diamond", EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNOFFICIAL. TrollGlaDOS (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to save this article, then you should be the one trying to save it through Wikiprojects, getting people to help, etc. Time and time again, all you do is revert the redirect with a snarky comment, and then let it sit for a week. The burden is on you here. I feel there's so little relevant info here that it can just be part of the overall homebrew article for now. You haven't proven otherwise yet. Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

:)

For being awesome.

TrollGlaDOS (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

just wanted to come by and say hi. it's been a long time we didn't talk and see eachother around WP... i hope you're doing fine ;) Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reza! I'm well, and I hope you are too. Yeah, a ways back I had intentions on working more on Grace for Drowning, in which I figured I'd probably see you around, but the album disappointed me a little, so I never got around to working on it much. (Though it's growing on me some, so maybe I'll get back to it...) I have seen you working on the Storm Corrosion articles though. Anyways, hope all is well with you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. and yeah it disappointed me too. i wanted to expanded it more but i just left it. maybe later. and actually Storm Corrosion disappointed me too. I can't make a connection with it. ;) Have a nice day Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: Signify question

Thank you for your input on that question. That question had left my mind for a while; I wonder if that is around the time I got the album, or if that was afterwards. Anyways, I appreciate the response concerning this question I had almost three years ago. Cheers. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Video Game Barnstar

		The Video Game Barnstar
		For all your hard work in video game-related areas, you definitely deserve this barnstar. :) CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I tend to work alone, and much of the time on less-than-mainstream topics, so I don't get many of these. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Virtual Console

Thanks for the vote of support ... you can see how this IP and I went round and round on this. Take a look at the edit history and look at his parting shot that I deleted as a personal attack ... then they tried to reinstate it under another IP. --McDoobAU93 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually the edit where you removed it (where he's going on about his wife or whatever) that I caught on my watchlist, and inspired me to chime in, because the IP was being so ridiculous. Sorry I didn't saying anything sooner, but I just hadn't noticed the conversation... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, and thanks. I thought it was hilarious that he accused you of being one of my sockpuppets! Oh well feeding time's over, I think. --McDoobAU93 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that funny too. As I was saying, it's not very often that two multi-year, 10,000+ editors get accused of being each other's sockpuppet. Can you imagine the level of committment to time and energy for a single person to be both of us? ^_^ Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I must be good to keep that going, right? ;) We'll see if he drops in on another IP this evening. They usually geolocate to Walla Walla, Washington, so that should give us a head-start ... that, and the argumentative tone he takes. But again, I'm gonna do my best to stay out of it, since I really think he's just trolling now. --McDoobAU93 20:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and at least now, with two sets of eyes on the article, I'm guessing if he keep's up his reverting, he'll either violate 3RR many times over, or it'll be enough to warrant page protection too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sally

Why did you delete my article? It was my understanding, based on the literally thousands of Marvel and DC character articles, most of which have no popularity, that ALL comic characters get to have individual articles. In any case, Sally is more than notable enough for her own page and has plenty of fan reception (which I understand is now necessary in articles) to talk about. But even if she didn't, she's been around for almost 20 years now and has appeared in almost every issue of her series! How is that not enough appearances for an article?

In any case, I will soon be recreating the article, more finished this time. Please don't touch it or we will have a problem. ResonX (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please calm down and take a breather... and lay off the threatening attitude. I don't think it's helpful and it certainly doesn't promoted the kind of collaborative atmophere needed to this project. :) Salvidrim! 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I looked at what you wanted to do, and while I am vaguely aware of the character, I doubt seriously this one merits its own article. The thing to remember is, regarding these other comics characters, there are a lot of details about the character's creation and history (both in print and in universe). If you want to make a good case for starting a character-specific article, add your new information to the list of characters article, then if it gets to overwhelm the page, you might (a) get support to separate it out or (b) find most of it is unsourced or otherwise inappropriate and removed. --McDoobAU93 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, articles need to meet the WP:GNG in order to avoid being deleted. This means coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources. The article was sourced by a game screenshot, a unreliable blog, a wikia, and a comic book. That's not coverage in reliable sources. How many Marvel characters have a article is irrelevant to whether or not Sally gets one.

I'd recommend working on simple editing of Wikipedia, and basic policy understanding, before taking on writing a whole article, but if you do go for it, work on making it meet the GNG if you want it to stick. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to explain myself further: Sally USED to have an article, along with dozens of other Sonic characters who are now article–less and hundreds if not thousands of other, unrelated fictional characters like Timmy Turner. I'm not trying to make an unprecedented new article, I'm simply trying to right what was set wrong years ago.

Sally has appeared in nearly every issue of a series that's been around for almost 20 years. Isn't that enough? How many appearances automatically warrants a fictional character an article?

Also, there is tons of fan art and discussions out there about Sally. How much notability is fan art and discussions worth? I'd say a lot. However, you only seem to accept sources like IGN as "notable", and when discussing fan reception on character articles you usually refer to places like that rather than to actual fans. What gives with that?

The Marvel/DC comparison is relevant because of the number of minor and unpopular comic characters from those universes that are allowed to have their own articles while much more popular characters like Sally are denied articles just because their comics aren't as mainstream. That's why I flagged Egg Fu for merging. If you ask me, there should be less than 100 character articles each for Marvel and DC. The rest should be merged.

ResonX (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources from "fans", as you say, doesn't make a topic notability. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable, independant sources"; this excludes passing mentions, sites without established reliability and primary sources. Salvidrim! 04:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Salvidrim is exactly right. ResonX, please stop making this out to be some sort of huge injustice. It was merged/deleted before, and now, because it didn't meet the WP:GNG. That's Wikipedia's criteria for notabilty, that is, it's right to have an article. It doesn't matter if she appears in one issue of a comic, or a million, it's whether or not reliable source provide coverage on her. Reliable sources are professional sites. Like Gamespot or IGN. Not fansites or kids with art or videos on Youtube or something.

I've looked at old versions of her article, and they were even worse than the one you made, in regards to fulfilling Notability requirements. You need to write it to Wikipedia's standard if you want it to stick. I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm saying it hasn't done yet. If you don't like Wikipedia's standards for notabilty, I'd suggest working on some Sonic wikia or a fansite or something. These are the rules that have to be followed here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Are you telling me that fan content is worth NOTHING WHATSOEVER, regardless of amount? And the same with amount of appearances? ResonX (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of notability within Wikipedia. I'm glad the point finally got across. :) Salvidrim! 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't gotten the point across, and you never will. That is a HORRIBLE mistake, and it is WRONG. It MUST be changed. ResonX (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wish you the best of luck changing one of the fundamental traits of Wikipedia. In the meantime, follow policy or your changes will be undone. Or go write at a Sonic Fansite, where fan content means something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not about Sally anymore.

There are certain facts that can't be sourced by your very specific standards. Does that mean they should be omitted from this site? ResonX (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Read WP:VERIFY. And these aren't my personal rules, they're Wikipedia policy.

Anyways, no, not everything needs to be sourced, but anything "challenged" does require a source, and if someone is adding tags to an article, then that mean's it's challenged. As such, it needs sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain this. And, for that matter, most of the other DCAU original characters. Excluding Harley Quinn and Terry McGinnis, none of them have any sources or notability. Why is it that characters from certain things such as DC are allowed to have articles automatically with no "Reception" required while all other works are extremely restricted when it comes to having character articles?

Also, what you say are "fundamental rules of Wikipedia" are NOT fundamental rules. They didn't exist until about 2008. Prior to that, pretty much everything could have an article, and it was great!

Finally, a question: What's worth more? One review in a published magazine, or one million fan reviews?

Respond to me ASAP.

ResonX (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Linking to terrible articles does not give a valid reason for creating another terrible article. It means the terrible articles should be deleted. If you want them to be deleted, go for it. There's WP:PROD and WP:AFD. I haven't done it because I honestly don't care about comic book stuff like that. My main interest is video game related, and rock music related. I have no obligation to do anything, let alone go about deleting random terribly written articles. There's just not enough time in the world to go about deleting every random terrible article. So I focus on things of interest. I won't object to you deleting them, in fact, I'd probably support it.
2. A fundamental rule of Wikipedia is using reliable sources to prove a topic passes the WP:GNG. Fan created artwork does not qualify as a reliable source. I don't know how to address the rest of what you said regarding 2008, I don't know what you're referring to.
3. One reliable source is more important than a million fan reviews, unless the fan reviews are covered by a reliable source. (ie if IGN does an article about how ridiculous some fan art is or something, it's worth mentioning. Again, read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Yes, but this particular album has it's names written in ALL CAPS. It's also copyrighted in all caps, the lyric videos are in all caps, everywhere else, it's all caps except here. This site is the only exception, the odd one out. I don't see why CAPS LOCK bothers you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L530303 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks sloppy, it looks like "yelling", and on Wikipedia, we use standard english, not crazy stylizations or capitalizations. It's policy - See WP:ALLCAPS. Thank you for at least discussion it with me, although you should have done talked it over before edit warring without leaving edit summaries. And you never should have resorted to name calling within the article itself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay your right. Sorry about that. In all honesty, I didn't know know to make edit summaries. It confused me how others were able to do it and I wasn't. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L530303 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Flipnote Memo

Any News about This slowly app?? Thanks comment by NoobLink 23 July 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, I don't know? Why do you ask me? I've never worked on that article/subject... Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This Article is already create it by Flipnote Studio page Just talk for first time and u page is great comment by NoobLink July 23 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobLink (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin

Breaking Benjamin: Do you want to stop deleting my change about Chad Szeliga's interview, I didn't post a link.

If you look back at the edit history, I only removed your information the times you provided a Youtube link. I didn't remove this one. That being said, I do agree with it's removal, it's rather pointless to say "There's an interview that talks about the band's status". Wouldn't it make more sense to actually say new information is? My recommendation would be to find a reliable source that states what the actual new information is. (Hint: Youtube's not a reliable source. There's too much unverifiable/fake information on there.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a real recording you fool? What type of editor doesn't even check the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike45ij (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because Youtube isn't typically a reliable source. There are copyright concerns. Since you were also randomly placing "full album downloads" in the article as well, it seems like a pretty safe bet that you fully disregard copyright concerns.

Additionally, I removed what you wrote today because all it says is that he doesn't know. What's the point in even mentioning it then? Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to try again ma'am. Not only have I never once posted any links to "Album downloads", I posted what Chad had to say about the band. I will continue to keep posting what he has to say, because unlike you, some people actually care about what Chad has/had to say about the band. Lets go back to the "downloads" you said I posted. If you were up to date on Youtube, you would realize that you can't convert any Youtube audio on ANY website anymore. All I posted was a link so you can HEAR the album. Plus, on the video's page, there is a GIANT DISCLAIMER giving all the rights to Breaking Benjamin and Hollywood Records. When did I ever say download? That's right, --I DIDN'T--. Just because "you" think something isn't important, does not mean it isn't. Everybody I have told about Chad's interview was very happy to hear something about Breaking Benjamin. I accept your apologies ma'am, and sorry for any confusion on your part, lets make sure this doesn't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike45ij (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Downloads or not, adding random links in articles to unofficial Youtube "full album listens", like you added in this edit, are still copyright violations all the same, and not appropriate to randomly throw into article.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how many people, for whatever reason, are happy to hear the drummer has no idea on the status of the band, you need to supplya source that Wikipedia deems reliable before it can be included in the article. Or it will continue to be removed.

Thirdly, stop with this silliness of regarding accepting apologies that were not given, or threats that this is not to happen again. It's not helping your case. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tales of Legendia

I am not going to do much editting of Tales of Legendia but I would like you to pay more attention to the further reading sections of articles you edit. As you can see in this diff references where already formatted. Please do not use bare URLs as references because of link rot. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 02:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you had a lot going on in that "Further Reading" section of yours, I hadn't noticed that the full citation of the sources was already there amongst all those other links and whatnot, or otherwise I would have used it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. If you find any reference(s) in a further reading section that are not WP:RS you can remove them with the edit summary "Removing non-[[WP:RS|RS]] references." as such section should contain only reliable sources. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? I haven't especially spotted any unreliable sources in a "Further Reading" section, and if I did, certainly after 3+ years and 14,000+ edits I know things like removing unreliable sources and what to say in an edit summary... Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearing some things up about my view on 'grunge' and AiC

Hey,man greetings,I know that you're concerned about my editings in AiC article,but I'd like to clear some things.You know,I only see grunge as a "scene" that connected some bands who had all went to high school in the same state and traded members once in a while.Alice is clearly a mix of heavy metal (early) transitioning into sludge metal, with elements of stoner and punk mixed in,more like 'grunge' was a mainstream brother of sludge/stoner in 90's that's why bands like Soundgarden,AiC,Tad got lumped in & that's ironic because you take other half of 'grunge' bands who sounded nothing alike.If you are a fan of Alice in Chains & also dig sludge/stoner/southern bands like Crowbar,Alabama Thunderpussy,Fu Manchu,Bongzilla,Monster Magnet etc. you'll come across the similarities,of course,every other band has their own sound,but still it's not hard to find the connection. Metalvayne (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how Grunge is defined on Wikipedia. (Look at the article. AiC is mentioned in it heavily. They were part of the grunge genre/movement, whether you or they like it or not.) and you still haven't found a reliable source to back up any of that all that sludge rock/stone rock nonsense. Virtually every edit you do regarding the stuff above is considered original research, and will be continue to be removed if all you have to go by are your personal ramblings on genre... Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"sludge rock/stone rock nonsense." What kind of a statement is that by an experienced Wikipedian like you?? And what the hell is 'Stone Rock' anyway,lol.There are definite articles about both subgenres available here on wiki.Study thoroughly & then jabber. Sludge metal, Stoner rock Metalvayne (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop jumping to conclusions. When I say "nonsense", I'm referring to conversations like this one, where you failed time and time again to provide any sort of reliable source that sludge metal is a genre they perform. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to videogame articles by Belgian IPs

Hi. I see you and some other editors have been struggling with vandalism to our videogame articles from multiple Belgian IPs:

• 178.119.63.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.117.164.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 178.117.164.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please feel free to ask any administrator to block any new accounts at the first sign of more vandalism; make sure they know the history of these other accounts so they don't worry about the new account or IP first having had multiple warnings. If it's the same person, they've had all the warnings and blocks they need to know our rules. Also, if they know this history, an administrator will likely block any new account for a longer period.

Thanks for watching out for our content! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of any background with the IP. I'll be sure to use this if I see similar vandalism popping up again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Blackfield

Hey, idk if you get notified of it or w/e since I'm not too big of a Wikipedian but I commented on the Talk page for Blackfield on the whole Members/Musicians thing. --68.46.2.4 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I get notified. But thanks for checking. I have responded with my two cents. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at A. B.'s talk page.
Message added 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC question

Hi, Sergecross73. I am seriously concerned about the consensus on the RfC for "Top X lists", since we possibly might not gain a clear consensus on the issue presented at the RfC and everyone is not on the same page about the issue presented there. As such, I was wondering if we should take this discussion to WT:VG in order to get a more clearer consensus on this matter or notify WT:VG about the RfC. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As you may have seen from my commment, I too, am starting to fear that we're not going to find a consensus on things. I think it could be good to mention at WP:VG. At first I thought it would be redundant to what we had already discussed there, but we had only mentioned the fact that we were going to try to come up with a "WP:NVGCHAR" of sorts, we didn't really discuss the "Top X List" part in particular. So yeah, it may be helpful alert WP:VG on it. Let me know if you'd prefer me or you to say something. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the project here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And I've also notified the village pump about this here, as well as the Square Enix WikiProject here. Would these help? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SE seems a little random, but it doesn't hurt I suppose. Hopefully we can get some more people involved to introduce some new perspectives... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All righty, then. :) Let's hope this works. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am quite interested in your thoughts posted on my talk page. I also have thoughts about the notability as well. For example, since WP:GNG requires significant coverage, such lists may be used if it goes into significant detail. However, I have also expressed concern that it could be too difficult to adjust the approach since the RfC has been running around for a while, even though I already refactored the question in the RfC earlier. If all else fails, we can take this to dispute resolution. Would that make sense? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to do either. On one hand, it'd almost be nice to start over with a new RfC with a different approach, preset options, etc, and then just notify people who had commented before to review it and comment again, especially since it's not like we're working towards any sort of consensus as it is. But I don't know if that's acceptable, and I don't want it to look dishonest or anything either, like "we're gonna keep on rewording until we get the answer we want!" - which isn't what we're doing at all, but you never know how people may interpret it. I'm going on vacation for the weekend, so I won't be around to help for the next couple days. So, it's up to you if you want to try something like that, or just wait out a few more days and see if anything else develops,and then take it from there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely response. By the way, I have already invited User:Torchiest and User:Tintor2 to join the discussion and they have offered their opinions there. As for using Top X lists, I too, have expressed serious concern that we need to explain why a character is so popular in the list, as Masem and Torchiest pointed out in this discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

And I've also notified the proposal village pump about the RfC. Is it acceptable? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I read over the RfC discussion and it doesn't look like I missed much while I was gone... Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Not to mention that the previous discussion has been broken down and there is a discussion break there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, while we're still waiting for Masem and the others to respond in the RfC, Kung Fu Man has started a merge discussion over at Talk:Julia Chang#Merge discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, I got a feeling that we might need an nonpartisan third-party, such as one of our administrators, to weigh in on this RfC and give their opinion about this. Should we contact one of our administrators about this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever avenues beyond what we're doing I'd support. I still don't think we're getting anywhere, and so many side-arguments and rants have opened up amongst the discussion that I think it's intimidating most editors out of even trying to start into that mess... Sergecross73 msg me 02:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have contacted PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, about the matter here and commented at the RfC about uninvolved users/administrators commenting on the situation. This should work, as we do not want stir up too much drama at AN or ANI. But if all else fails, we'll have to take it to WP:ANI or WP:RFM about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have consulted with Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about the situation here and I have been told that if I feel that it is that bad, we should follow dispute resolution options or posting in one of the public venues for wider community input. As a precaution, I placed the {{Uninvolved}} tag for help. Hopefully, we will work up a positive solution about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Did PresN not have any thoughts on this? Anyways, I think you're doing the right thing. Thanks for keeping me updated. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. :> I am trying to resolve the dispute in accordance with the WP:DR options. By the way, I think PresN might get to the discussion soon enough. Since we're trying to resolve the dispute, we don't want to game the system, as I am a rule-abiding editor. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here, I understand. I may have a stance in things, but I'd rather we find some sort of consensus, even if it's not the one I necessarily want, so we can end the arguing, and so that we can come up with something that can be referenced to in Merger and AFD discussions. I too have been very careful not do to do anything that would break any rules here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, just so you are aware, it looks like an uninvolved user responded in the section break. Hopefully that will cause more uninvolved users to help out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, Niemti is up to his old tricks at ANI and I explained my actions. However, I admit that I am clearly frustrated with his accusations and battleground mentality towards me, and I don't want to heat up the situation any further. Can you please take a look at this and voice your opinions on this matter there? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:No consensus has been marked as policies and we have come with a consensus on WT:VG/GL, do you mind if you help work on my proposal? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I will starting tomorrow. How would you prefer I do it? It's in your userspace...do you want me to directly alter things? Or just suggest things, and you make the alterations? I don't want to step on your toes or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind either one. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll wait and look it over and see which way makes more sense then. If I do make a direct change, feel free to revert, I won't be offended or anything... Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You may edit my userspace and expand on my proposal. I would also be open to some ideas and suggestions you might have for it. Now then, shall we begin? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant to work on it more today, but life has been quite busy. However, I'll keep making comments on it here and there. I'll start momentarily and we can just kinda go back and forth when we get the chance. Okay? Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)