Vandalism pt 29
Serge's 29th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Serge/@Ferret:. The user Britneyspears782, who then block evaded using the charmingly titled Cookiefullofpoo3, which was blocked by Ferret, has returned to genre-war on Night Call (album) without a source. If you can believe it, their username this time around is Chcoolatecookie4848, a riff on their previous username, although the account's original name was "Britneyspears2277", a variation on their first username. Apparently they only care for Britney Spears and chocolate cookies (sometimes made out of excrement). Ss112 06:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, not real creative with the usernames. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Knoblejrjr is posting his own articles/website into a few football player articles. I warned him on his talk page that doing so should be avoided on Wikipedia (per WP:COI) but I thought I'd also let an admin who handles this stuff more be aware of it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Warned about SPAM and PROMOTION too. Let me know if you catch any more of it post-warning, and I'll indef. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Tkgood (talk · contribs) This one is a robotic serial abuser who does not care, as you clearly see on the Talk page. He drills through countless video game credits, sometimes dropping mobygames WP:VGRS like here, here, and Baseball (1983 video game) multiple times after being warned. And the list goes on. — Smuckola(talk) 12:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have a final warning, since most I saw were not recent. Informed he'll be blocked on sight for future violations. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay well I guess his vandalism of your Talk page (that I'm now restoring) and blanking your warning with an edit message refusing to speak to anyone, is the future violation you were looking for. In fact, just before that, he deleted a RS and added mobygames lol. His whole Talk page was a big middle finger to Wikipedia and today we have our very own! — Smuckola(talk) 05:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked him 72 hours as a checkuser for creating the attack account Surgehaha. I was feeling lenient has he had reached out to ask about sources. However, this block is open to be extended by any admin who feels it should be, including up to indef. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I was going to look into that, but I had kinda wondered if it was that Tim account that's been socking (see a few sections down). Hadn't really expected that of TK. Good block. Between that and his other reactions to a final warning for unsourced editing, I expect further blocks. But this is appropriate for now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've blocked him 72 hours as a checkuser for creating the attack account Surgehaha. I was feeling lenient has he had reached out to ask about sources. However, this block is open to be extended by any admin who feels it should be, including up to indef. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay well I guess his vandalism of your Talk page (that I'm now restoring) and blanking your warning with an edit message refusing to speak to anyone, is the future violation you were looking for. In fact, just before that, he deleted a RS and added mobygames lol. His whole Talk page was a big middle finger to Wikipedia and today we have our very own! — Smuckola(talk) 05:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Have a final warning, since most I saw were not recent. Informed he'll be blocked on sight for future violations. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Serge. Would you be able to protect Palomino (Miranda Lambert album)? Basically every day since I created it, an IP editor who's vandalised other articles has changed the lead and it's just disruptive at this point. Per her discography the counts are correct—she independently released an album in 2001 that I think a lot of people don't think counts but it exists. Thanks. Ss112 12:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Protected. While there's probably room for debate, I doubt someone saying "the one and only truth" is likely to hold a constructive discussion on it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Serge. Would you be able to protect Crash (Charli XCX album) and Love. Angel. Music. Baby.? An IP editor that @Binksternet: says is sockpuppeter User:Andrewbf is repeatedly restoring misinformed edits and making all sorts of the same edits on the range 189.174.12.253/16. Ss112 13:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Serge. After To the Moon (song) was unprotected, another one of these "Mercedes King" accounts has come out of the work to re-add her name: Bobcelestin, who seemingly tried to start a draft for her a few years ago that went nowhere. I don't know how many accounts this clout-chasing, fake social following-having supposed songwriter who got her name on the American copyright office filing for a British song has, but they're persistent. Could you re-protect the page? Ss112 20:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Do you mind decreasing the protection level of List of video games in development? It has been permanently protected for nearly nine years. These lists will benefit a lot if drive-by IP editors also have access to editing. OceanHok (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Typically we need to ask the protecting admin, SQL. I don't think it should be an issue though. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I'm running out the door to work, but it sounds like it may have been a mistake. Feel free to drop the protection if you believe it is appropriate. SQLQuery Me! 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- It strikes me as the type of article that would be a magnet for trouble, so I could hypothetically see how one could give it indef protection status. I don't mind unprotecting if that's what everyone wants, but I think we should keep a close eye on it in case it needs it again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pages of similar nature ("years in video games" articles) are surprisingly well-maintained even when IP editors are the main driving force behind it. I will still keep the article watchlisted though, and will request protection again when it is needed. OceanHok (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is surprising, considering how much some of the video game generation type articles need protection. But so be it, I believe you. I've dropped the protection. Sergecross73 msg me 16:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pages of similar nature ("years in video games" articles) are surprisingly well-maintained even when IP editors are the main driving force behind it. I will still keep the article watchlisted though, and will request protection again when it is needed. OceanHok (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- It strikes me as the type of article that would be a magnet for trouble, so I could hypothetically see how one could give it indef protection status. I don't mind unprotecting if that's what everyone wants, but I think we should keep a close eye on it in case it needs it again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I'm running out the door to work, but it sounds like it may have been a mistake. Feel free to drop the protection if you believe it is appropriate. SQLQuery Me! 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Typically we need to ask the protecting admin, SQL. I don't think it should be an issue though. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Denise p 111 (talk · contribs) Every single one of this person's mainspace edits has been reverted, ending now in mass censorship of bad words. Naturally, obviously, they don't care. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't warrant a block at this time, clearly good faith and no further edit since level 3 warning. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a bit irritating, but relatively little damage is actually being done, considering the scope and (lack of) frequency of the edits. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't warrant a block at this time, clearly good faith and no further edit since level 3 warning. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Missileboi (talk · contribs) You can see a list of warnings against disruptive editing on his Talk page, and the only response he's ever had to anyone is when he blanked it. Good news! By decree of his user page, original research is now called clarification, and disruptive editing is nobody's fault. It just happens. That sure does relieve me a lot, because not doing those things sure was a lot of work. About half of his edits have been reverted because they are all WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT, destroying the indentation of infoboxes, WP:OR, and creating junk articles. Just don't talk to him about it because I sure wouldn't want you to suffer being hushed. Officially WP:NOTHERE. — Smuckola(talk) 21:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- I only want to add small bits of information that are missing. Some may not have any sources cited, but please, I don't want to have my edits reverted for reasons such as, "Stop (destroying the page) with your disruptive editing". Yes, it is natural to do excessive, and sometimes disruptive editing, I understand. But I am not trying to destroy the site in any way. I am writing this as clarification. And also, what do you mean by 'destroying the indentation of infoboxes'? Am I doing something wrong with editing the infoboxes? Missileboi (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I need you guys to work together. Adding sources on Wikipedia is non-negotiable. It must be done. And you must respond and engage with people when they confront you about these things. But Smuckola, I need you to be a bit calmer in confronting people as well. It seems this editor is, in good-faith, confused about what some of these issues are all about. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I only want to add small bits of information that are missing. Some may not have any sources cited, but please, I don't want to have my edits reverted for reasons such as, "Stop (destroying the page) with your disruptive editing". Yes, it is natural to do excessive, and sometimes disruptive editing, I understand. But I am not trying to destroy the site in any way. I am writing this as clarification. And also, what do you mean by 'destroying the indentation of infoboxes'? Am I doing something wrong with editing the infoboxes? Missileboi (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Jgd2323 (talk · contribs) Keeps adding himself (extrapolating based on his username) as a 2022 draft pick of the Washington Commanders. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about football to know if these could be construed as good faith but misguided edits, and was going to ask follow up questions, but the account has gone silent in recent days, so it may have taken care of itself too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hasn't yet returned but just for future reference, a year's draft class can easily be verified from a multitude of sources, including Pro Football Reference and NFL.com. There is no Jonas Gonzalez. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about football to know if these could be construed as good faith but misguided edits, and was going to ask follow up questions, but the account has gone silent in recent days, so it may have taken care of itself too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- RMc (talk · contribs) The classic is back in the saddle. I'm sure you remember blocking him several times, and then indefinitely for years, for all the rants and essays of original research, and the verbal war against you and i, and the explicit commitment to only doing so, that he just now blanked and resumed. I hadn’t yet reverted the radio station edit because I wanted to give the slightest shred of a shadow of a doubt that the given source had updated itself, and that a broken clock could be right once a day, but I can’t find the number 250 anywhere relevant. — Smuckola(talk) 20:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- The block log shows that I merely blocked him for 3 months, and he just voluntarily took 7 years off after that. The two warnings he's gotten are probably sufficient for now - the edits are unsourced but appear to be made in good faith - but if they don't rectify it soon I can see a block being appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- And let's add a sockpuppet suspect ConcordGrapes (talk · contribs) — Smuckola(talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like he was indeffed before I even looked into him. Though a comment at ANI indicated that a CU was ran and they're somehow unrelated to RmC. So it appears we don't have the evidence to hold that against RmC at this time. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Serge, could you protect Un Verano Sin Ti? There's some obsessive IP editor fighting over a capital T (they've reverted three times in the last week over it) despite my at first linking them MOS:THEBAND and explaining we don't capitalise "the" in band names in the middle of a sentence. They're now calling me a "freak" and a "Karen" (despite the fact they're fighting right back) so I'm guessing they won't listen to reason. (Wouldn't be surprised if they register an account just to fight over it too.) Ss112 01:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Do you think it would be appropriate to block Meena Boggs (talk · contribs) and Meena Kurian (talk · contribs)? They are likely the same user and I have warned them at least 5 times over the past half a year when they added hoax DLC pack to Planet Zoo. Their edits on zoo articles are likely problematic as well since they are mostly unsourced additions. OceanHok (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked both, as they are clearly the same person, and one of them made a (ludicrous) death threat towards you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Can you block 2601:846:c200:3558:74ce:cc9b:bb2f:417b (talk · contribs)? I suspect he is a sock for Meena Kurian/Meena Boggs. This edit is similar to this one which was reverted back in May. He is also adding a bunch of unsourced additions to real-life zoo articles, which align with Meena's editing pattern as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked, protected Planet Zoo for longer too. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi! Can you block 2601:846:c200:3558:74ce:cc9b:bb2f:417b (talk · contribs)? I suspect he is a sock for Meena Kurian/Meena Boggs. This edit is similar to this one which was reverted back in May. He is also adding a bunch of unsourced additions to real-life zoo articles, which align with Meena's editing pattern as well. OceanHok (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked both, as they are clearly the same person, and one of them made a (ludicrous) death threat towards you. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Serge. Could you protect Harry's House? Some IP address who's already added unsourced genres to the article and one of the songs from it is edit warring over the genres acting like some expert. I foresee more genre warring from IP editors considering the album's just been released. Ss112 04:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- ChallengeCick might require a final warning. With his upload block and this edit (all his other edits to this article were reverted) I have reason to believe that WP:NOTHERE applies. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Warned. I agree, they need to get it together, it's been a number of months now... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm also suggest an ultimatum to him that, if he does make an edit that's reverted, he does not revert it back. He engages in edit warring on almost all these bad edits and I see that as more problematic than the edits themselves. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Warned. I agree, they need to get it together, it's been a number of months now... Sergecross73 msg me 18:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- 89.211.181.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Their vandalism has been reverted, but you might want to hide their edit summaries. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yikes. Done. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- IcedChocolate (talk · contribs) continues to revert the number of teams at The International from the factual 20 to 30. Seems like they may be new to Wikipedia, but continuing to revert something clearly false without any attempt to even discuss it doesn't imply good faith to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that he's off to a rough start, but I started with a edit warring warning, since I didn't see that he had gotten one yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Doing it on Draft:The International 2022 as well. The citation in use clearly says 20. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree that he's off to a rough start, but I started with a edit warring warning, since I didn't see that he had gotten one yet. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- 172.56.81.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adding bogus info to articles. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Serge. Can you protect Un Verano Sin Ti for longer this time? As soon as it was unprotected (it was protected on May 27 then unprotected on June 10), that mentally unstable IP editor edited the page to change it again. Evidently they were counting the days, probably nothing else going on in their life. Thanks. Ss112 20:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112 Protected, but, let's be more careful in how we speak about people and mental illness. Just report it, leave the commentary out. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Thank you Ferret, but I know the limits. You probably don't know the history behind my requesting this—I'm not saying "mentally unstable" as an insult here and nor would I. It was my attempt at a genuine characterisation to identify the IP editor to Serge. As you are an admin and can see revdel-ed edit summaries, go through and see how unhinged and how quickly they got in edit summaries on Un Verano Sin Ti and The Marías late last month. Ss112 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm telling you we're smart people who can make judgements just fine without such a characterisation. Whether you believe it's true or not, let's leave it out. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: I know you can make judgments yourself and I never said you couldn't. I said it was specifically to identify somebody amongst all the IP editors I tell Serge about. I'd like to reiterate they immediately assumed my race; began calling me racist, a "coloniser" then a faggot in Spanish; saying they're going to get somebody to hack my IP address (and became convinced somebody would care enough about a silly Wikipedia spat to do that for them); registered a new account even after I was no longer the one reverting their disruption, ranting about how "this won't end well for you"...all over the case of a letter per a guideline. They also said in an edit summary on an article about one of the shootings in the US that they were going to "tell Twitter" about Wikipedia's apparent collective "racism" (whatever that achieves). With all due respect, I don't "believe it's true". I know it to be. I'm done. Ss112 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and I'm telling you we're smart people who can make judgements just fine without such a characterisation. Whether you believe it's true or not, let's leave it out. -- ferret (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Thank you Ferret, but I know the limits. You probably don't know the history behind my requesting this—I'm not saying "mentally unstable" as an insult here and nor would I. It was my attempt at a genuine characterisation to identify the IP editor to Serge. As you are an admin and can see revdel-ed edit summaries, go through and see how unhinged and how quickly they got in edit summaries on Un Verano Sin Ti and The Marías late last month. Ss112 01:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ss112 Protected, but, let's be more careful in how we speak about people and mental illness. Just report it, leave the commentary out. -- ferret (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Editor's recent discography edits
Hi Sergecross73. I might have started a thread here about HumanxAnthro before but I'm becoming concerned about their discography edits as of late. Specifically now it's Duran Duran discography. Firstly, they split one live album into its own subsection and claimed this was a "WP:COMMONSENSE edit" [1], which I reverted in my cleaning up of the article (they have not since taken issue with this). The other day they split the band's relatively short history of 15 studio albums up, but not for WP:SPLIT-justified size reasons, but because we use different chart sources for different time periods for Australia, Canada and Italy. I have explained that discographies generally deal with and acknowledge this in the adjacent citation all the time, and other editors in the past (like the experienced @Nqr9:) have taken care to make sure the switch in source used for the chart is explained for readers in the citation for the chart at the top of the column and that's been how it's handled.
However, HumanxAnthro believes we should split four albums off in their own section just because the chart for Australia changed, then when Canada's changed after the 1990s, split there, and they have recently taken to adding a different source for Italy's charts so that's been separated too. I reverted this, then today they reverted me manually, claiming that I'm "uninformed" about certain charts (lol) because they think I'm unaware that we're using different sources for Italy and Canada at different times (or that I think the two sources used for Italy's charts are the same?) when I literally acknowledged this in my revert the other day. I have asked them to propose this on the talk page. I have said I would understand if it was for size reasons but readers aren't benefitting from having such short sections with no visibly apparent justification. Can you please tell them to slow down and propose changes on the article talk page (God knows I don't need another debate with them on their user talk page) if and after they are reverted? Thanks. Ss112 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- HumanxAnthro, can you help me understand where you're coming from here? You're relatively experienced, so it doesn't seem like you'd need my usual "it's okay to be bold, but it's generally a good idea to actively participate in discussions if you're making non-standard changes or if you want to push forward with implementing contested changes". Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think my message is getting across clearly. It's not that "different sources" are being used, it's the fact that the country abbreviations for columns ("AUS" "ITA" "CAN") each link to an wiki article about one chart or music industry organization, even when positions that are from a different organization are included under that column, which misleads reader that are not chart nerds into thinking FIMI and M&D are all publishing the same chart. I'm open to not having the country abbreviations linked to a single page and noting which positions are from which chart (FIMI or Musica e Dischi or instance). It's especially important for Italy's positions, because M&D's charts were still going on for a long time even when FIMI's charts are around, and Duran Duran's post-1994 releases have all charted on those as well as FIMI. (I think the M&D charts are still around today if hitparadeitalia.it is any indication, although the website's chart archives go up to 2018). Canada's Nielsen chart was also around in the late 1990s to 2000, the same period RPM's Top Singles chart was going on, which an Canada charts expert has told me on the talk page were different because the Nielsen chart used sales and the RPM chart only radio. I would have not done the splitting if this was not an issue. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't wish to have the same discussion across multiple talk pages, as I've just left an explanation on HumanxAnthro's talk page, but I think a wikilink to the current charts benefits readers more, there's precedent for doing this, and differing chart sources can be explained and linked in the prose of the citation, like the AUS chart on Duran Duran discography has. That's why I've made sure to ping Nqr9, the editor who wrote these sorts of explanatory citations on hundreds of articles, which I find very helpful and a great pre-existing compromise. It functions as both a footnote and an explanation. Ss112 16:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I just don't want readers mislead. Also, I think the Kent and ARIA overall sources should be the only ones in the album columns, since the extra chart inquiries are for singles. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- In my years of adding charts, I've seen very few people express any sort of confusion about the Kent Music Report/ARIA Chart distinction on talk pages or edit summaries. Same with Canada's or any other country's charts. It's quite clear if one clicks on the ARIA Charts page they haven't existed the entire time Duran Duran has, but even if readers don't click through, the citation explains not all the chart positions come from one source. This is why I keep bringing up the citations other editors have taken the time to compile, because they do a good job of explaining. Before I knew, they helped me. I think having a unified citation is beneficial, because otherwise we'd need a separate citation and that would require repeating sources along with the extra single sources. There's not too many that we need to split those either. Ss112 18:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but I just don't want readers mislead. Also, I think the Kent and ARIA overall sources should be the only ones in the album columns, since the extra chart inquiries are for singles. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't wish to have the same discussion across multiple talk pages, as I've just left an explanation on HumanxAnthro's talk page, but I think a wikilink to the current charts benefits readers more, there's precedent for doing this, and differing chart sources can be explained and linked in the prose of the citation, like the AUS chart on Duran Duran discography has. That's why I've made sure to ping Nqr9, the editor who wrote these sorts of explanatory citations on hundreds of articles, which I find very helpful and a great pre-existing compromise. It functions as both a footnote and an explanation. Ss112 16:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think my message is getting across clearly. It's not that "different sources" are being used, it's the fact that the country abbreviations for columns ("AUS" "ITA" "CAN") each link to an wiki article about one chart or music industry organization, even when positions that are from a different organization are included under that column, which misleads reader that are not chart nerds into thinking FIMI and M&D are all publishing the same chart. I'm open to not having the country abbreviations linked to a single page and noting which positions are from which chart (FIMI or Musica e Dischi or instance). It's especially important for Italy's positions, because M&D's charts were still going on for a long time even when FIMI's charts are around, and Duran Duran's post-1994 releases have all charted on those as well as FIMI. (I think the M&D charts are still around today if hitparadeitalia.it is any indication, although the website's chart archives go up to 2018). Canada's Nielsen chart was also around in the late 1990s to 2000, the same period RPM's Top Singles chart was going on, which an Canada charts expert has told me on the talk page were different because the Nielsen chart used sales and the RPM chart only radio. I would have not done the splitting if this was not an issue. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Serge. Please see your email. Ss112 04:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi again Serge. I've sent you an email about a user you've previously warned about plagiarising sources doing so again. At the very least it's very close paraphrasing. I haven't looked through their edits enough to know how widespread it is since your warning. I'm honestly not sure they can word things themselves very well. Ss112 09:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Serge, HumanxAnthro is now randomly making personal attacks against me in edit summaries in disagreements I had nothing to do with. Ss112 21:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Serge, I'm becoming very concerned with the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of HumanxAnthro. They've just posted an extended series of mini-rants linking to a bunch of diffs of other users talking about different charts, in a thread about the Finnish chart source they've been using, on Wikipedia talk:Record charts as an excuse to attack all recent posts there they disagree with (like this). (It appears they've also repeated some personal attack against me?) More concerning however is them now essentially claiming consensus forming against them using a Finnish chart source doesn't mean anything because the users disagreeing with them are using "WP:WHOCARES arguments" here. Attention needed? It's just "I will do whatever I want even if another editor disagrees with it". Ss112 03:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll dig into it tomorrow. Upon first glance, they certainly look like they're struggling to stay CIVIL or calm, at the very least... Sergecross73 msg me 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Are they handling themselves well? No. Are they persuading others? No. Are they keeping cool? No. But unless they start overtly editing against consensus or start blatant name-calling, I'm not sure I can take action yet. Right now, it's more of a "they should want to change of their own accord because what they're doing is very obviously not working" phase. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll dig into it tomorrow. Upon first glance, they certainly look like they're struggling to stay CIVIL or calm, at the very least... Sergecross73 msg me 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I called it. Staying away from music charts and "not even thinking about it" didn't last very long. Several editors, including @Lil-unique1: who has now removed it from several articles, expressed a concern with the Italian Musica e dischi chart that they've just added to another article. Ss112 23:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Final warned. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112 and Serge, I'm staying out of charts, but may I ask why you are talking about me without notifying me that you are doing so? You're probably not intending this, but it feels like you're talking about me behind my back like I'm a villain and I'm freaked out. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- See my user page and the the top of my talk page. I invite any/all editors to come to me if they need admin intervention, especially if it's a content area I'm familiar with like music or video games. Most people add entries to the "vandalism" section at the top, but if it's something more nuanced than straight up vandalism/blocking/protection stuff, editors often make a separate section, like this one. It's not like it's anything official like ANI, so it's not like there's a requirement for anyone to be notified. Sergecross73 msg me 03:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, when do you all feel comfortable with me coming back to charts or talking on WP:RECORDCHARTS, cause I don't want to stay away from this forever. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't put this on anybody else. You said you would "stay away from anything chart-related" at ANI. Nobody told you to. Sergecross asked you to stop making contentious chart-related edits, including charts that others have questioned the validity of. Also, nobody has to notify the editor they're talking about—this isn't ANI. I am done having arguments with you, so please don't reply to this trying to start one with me because my patience for anything chart-related involving you is exhausted. Thank you. Ss112 02:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know how to answer that at zero days in. You really haven't even started yet, as I just gave you the final warning yesterday, and here we are talking about it again today. Try actually taking time away from the area first. Sergecross73 msg me 03:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ss112 and Serge, I'm staying out of charts, but may I ask why you are talking about me without notifying me that you are doing so? You're probably not intending this, but it feels like you're talking about me behind my back like I'm a villain and I'm freaked out. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 02:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Final warned. Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
ds
Why do you seem to think there are issues with my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhichUserAmI (talk • contribs) 15:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC) I have already addressed that and am currently correcting that oversight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhichUserAmI (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have no idea where you've "already addressed it". Every edit I've seen you make on the page has violated it very badly. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've tried. I've done everything you and that little Ferret kid have said, yet you still complain and ban me from editing the article. I removed the codes. I significantly 80% cut down on the Action Replay section, leaving only the most important, cut-and-dry, straight to the point objective facts. I removed all sections that violated NPOV. I ADDED to the article in terms of grammatical corrections and updating the figures to the most recent available. What more exactly do you want me to do? Please explain to me exactly how badly I 'violated' your site and lay out exactly what I can do to fix my egregious error and outstanding lapse of judgement. Please, go ahead, be my guest.
- But no, don't bother, that would be a waste of your time. Because even if I followed every single step on your list, you would likely still find something to complain about, because it isn't written by yourself apparently. WhichUserAmI (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're actually lucky you aren't fully blocked already for some of the other edits you've made. Continuing with the personal attacks is a fast track to get you there. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- When I opened up with "For starters", alongside my initial warning that your content was nowhere near appropriate, I really felt like I was being clear that there were many issues with your edits, and I was only beginning to explain the issues.
- Like I was alluding to before, there's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. And the worst thing you can do is jump right in and make massive changes to popular articles and have an attitude about it when someone points out how wrong you're doing things. I can keep explaining if you truly are interested in learning. But if you just want to sloppily write whatever you want, go start a blog or make a Twitter account or something. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. I am interested in learning what exactly I am doing wrong, because I have knowledge that I would like to contribute.
- This is why I began editing the article in the first place.
- I feel that my contributions have been satisfactory to the rules you have presented to me, and that they fit well within the article.
- So, would you please be so kind as to explain why exactly they are not. WhichUserAmI (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Help with Playrix article?
Hi Sergecross73. I see you’re part of the Video Games WikiProject, and was hoping you could help me with some proposed edits to improve the Playrix article. I have a conflict of interest, so I can't update the article myself. Would you be willing to take a look? It’s posted here Talk:Playrix#Playrix_Requested_Edits_June_2022. Thanks for your help.Interstellar108 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
A reason for captions
Hello, you recently asked on Sonic Frontiers why an image caption should include what can be seen by looking - those who can't see. That could be a physical disability, or reading a copy of this on a mirror with busted image links. So, please consider reading the description. Metallic Lord (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who has previously worked in ADA compliance and accessibility, including with several visually-impaired individuals, it's really not necessary. Besides, clarifying the image as "third person combat" in just the description implies the existence of "first person combat" which is inaccurate. Captions should be simple and straightforward. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As someone else who works in these areas, you are wrong. Metallic Lord (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know the purpose of captions, that's why I objected to your addition. Perspective is rarely mentioned in them. I won't argue further, since I see that you've been blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- As someone else who works in these areas, you are wrong. Metallic Lord (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)