Tripple-ddd

Welcome!

Hello, Tripple-ddd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sega may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sega may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''Demon Tribe'' (2013 <ref>http://blogs.sega.com/category/demon-tribe/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Sega arcade games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''[[Mobile Suit Gundam|Gundam Battle Operating Simulator]]'' — (2005) (developed by [[Namco]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sega may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sega may have broken the syntax by modifying 10 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sega may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * ''Demon Tribe'' (2013 <ref>http://blogs.sega.com/category/demon-tribe/</ref>
• * ''[[London 2012 (video game)]]'' (2012}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Tripple-ddd, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tripple-ddd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

File:969136-wow entertainment logo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:969136-wow entertainment logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

File:693px-Overworks.svg.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:693px-Overworks.svg.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sega Sports R&D, you may be blocked from editing. You know full well what you're doing - that was blatant vandalism, and you know it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was going to reply to your ping of me on Lukeno's talk page, but he removed it before I could post my response, so I'll say it here:

I'm getting tired of telling you to write Wikipedia content according to what reliable sources say. This isn't the first time. See WP:VG/S for a list of sources to use or not use. (You'll see, for example, that IGN and Polygon have consensus for being reliable, while MobyGames does not.) You don't need to believe them blindly, but I find it unlikely that two mainstream sources like this both messed up a basic detail like this, and you haven't provided reliable counter-examples. Every time - go by what the reliable sources say.

• Also, if you make any more blatantly disruptive edits like the one Lukeno is talking about above, you'll be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Sergecross73: But I have provided a counter example one from Nintendo.com and the official credits (disregarding Mobygames, the extracted inside is the matter, which if that does not count I'll point to YouTube, and seeing the credits being displayed).--Tripple-ddd (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's a NewsWeek interview, with a Sega Rep directly stating that the Sega Sports team was working on it (at least the first title, though I doubt they've ever handed it off to another team.) Sega Sports is part of Sega, so its not like calling the developer "Sega" discounts "Sega Sports" as a developer - ones just more specific than the other. Just like it would be right to say that Fire Emblem is made by Intelligent Systems or just Nintendo, because one is part of the other. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Sergecross73: It mentiones Sega's sports team, not Sega Sports as a seperate idendity. Yes Sega has a sports team that existed for about a year: specifically created for sports. That didn't last long...http://www13.atwiki.jp/game_staff/pages/603.html#id_307af977 it quickly became a "consumer" studio in about 2008. Here is another mention http://www.1up.com/features/last-arcade-crusaders (...arcade amusement departments comprised of six specialized departments - sports, consumer, etc.) of a Sega sports division existing in Sega of Japan as well. Meaning that Virtua Tennis 3 could be part of Sega's Sports team? No it is usually credited to something else.Sega has had divisions internally for Sega CD, 32X, PC, mobile games...they don't have their own pages...and having Sega Sports as the single exception is inconsistent. As I pointed the credits and official website state nothing of a Sega Sports division existing. Intelligent Systems and Nintendo are an entirely different matter. Intelligent Systems (note the Co., Ltd. moniker) is an official firm, listed seperately in official reports, noted in the titles screen and credits of the games. They also have their own website.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
      • ...Is that what you're proposing? That "Sega Sports" doesn't even exist? I don't follow at all. Why would reliable sources (IGN, Polygon) and actual Sega Employees be talking about something that doesn't exist? (I find it hard to interpret "Sega's sports team" being anything other than referring to Sega Sports.)
      • Anyways, like always, if you and Lukeno can't come to an agreement on it, then you need to start up another separate discussion at the WP:VG talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
        • It existed, but my argument is that it shoudn't have a page. And Polygon and IGN can be wrong at times, they likely just saw the uncited wikipedia claim to begin with and just added it to their page, just like the Yakuza series having the Amusement Vision moniker on GameSpot/IGN etc., which I removed a while ago on Wikipedia.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I think you're grasping at straws here. You don't know where IGN/Polygon got their info from, and quite frankly, I think its much more of a stretch to buy into your proposal. You're saying there's no "Sega Sports", but there's something referred to as a "Sega sports team" within Sega, but they're not called that, even though reliable sources call them that. Like I said, you're not convincing anyone here, so its time to start a discussion somewhere there will be more participants, or drop it. Your call. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsushi Seimiya listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Atsushi Seimiya. Since you had some involvement with the Atsushi Seimiya redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I nominated this redirect for deletion, which is I think what you were trying to achieve by blanking the page. If you see a redirect you disagree with in the future, please go to WP:RFD and nominate it for deletion according to the directions there. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sega page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Noriyuki Shimoda

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Noriyuki Shimoda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Takao Miyoshi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Takao Miyoshi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Akinori Nishiyama

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Akinori Nishiyama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mifune Satoshi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mifune Satoshi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Makoto Osaki

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Makoto Osaki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yoji Ishii

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Yoji Ishii requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Masami Ishikawa

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Masami Ishikawa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hisashi Suzuki

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hisashi Suzuki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice on creating articles.

Read through this: Wikipedia:Your first article. When you create an article you need to make sure you establish notability (Wikipedia:Notability). That means significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Also check WP:VG/S to find a list of video game sources that are generally considered reliable or unreliable. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Iizuka the head of CS2?

Nothing I have seen indicates that he has any involvement with Phantasy Star, Puyo Puyo, or other CS2 products. Out of curiosity, do you have any sources to back that up?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Very late on this, but here it says Division Manager of CS2: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/ir/ar2013/present/present_01.html

Good find. Come to think of it, Iizuka may have been mentioned in the credits of some recent Puyo Puyo games, but never in any Phantasy Star entry that I know of. Your source almost makes me question whether CS2 really is currently handling Phantasy Star. Can you prove that as well?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: So, I listed some games unrelated to Sonic and Puyo and they are indeed not part of CS2, but simply just in-house, but made by members who were involved with Sonic Team games before (PSO obviously). Which is what I referred to in the article, and also put references for each game where each developer can be found with a description what they done before. Phantasy Star is in the Online R&D division http://sega-games.co.jp/csol/recruit/career/--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sega articles

Minimal bios such as these will get deleted unless they are substantially expanded, and referenced. There need to be sufficient sources to prove the material in the article, and the extent of the work has to be notable. I'd advise you to see to this very quickly. DGG ( talk ) 12:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

• I have heard far too many complaints about you not following rules and not playing nice with others. Your recent edit at the Sega article, where you clearly made an edit against consensus, pushed it over the line. When you return in a week, follow consensus, edit collaboratively, and make edits according to what third party, reliable sources say. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dissident93: "Who is saying it should stay aside from you? BlusterBlaster seemed to accept the edits. Also read the added paragraph, keeping both sentences would be redundancy." You have not responded to this sentence, and the matter is unrelated to the discussion that was months. Please be clear with communicating as you continue to ignore specific conversations and points and rather generalize and see every edit with the same intent. Participate in responding to specific points. Like what do you actually think of me adding that mobile paragraph with the intention of replacing the thing you added? Why aren't you ok with it? What do you think would be better for it?

• FWIW, I found out about the block and clarified the situation on Sergecross' TP here, but circumstances around the block notwithstanding, the general consensus among other editors is that there's an issue with your approach. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 14:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hisashi Suzuki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hisashi Suzuki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hisashi Suzuki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 01:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Masami Ishikawa for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masami Ishikawa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masami Ishikawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 01:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

New section

@Sergecross73: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner This user has reverted on of my articles and made delete notifications on other articles, without any sort of explonation...

I don't see any wrong-doing here. A week ago, you created some extremely short articles with very few references. On the same day, on this talk page, you were notified that they didn't really adhere to Wikipedias notability guidelines. A week passed, and you didn't really improve them at all. It's only natural that someone nominate them for deletion. I personally would have just made them redirects, but AFD is plausible too. Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I provided a reference...and gave all the information I could get from that. So that makes it not notable? Why just not stub it like tons of the other articles? I have not seen a rule on short biographies not being allowed...Japanese Engineers have alot of stub pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_engineers--Tripple-ddd (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

He feels it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Making articles about living people with 3-4 sentences and 1-2 sources isn't exactly the best way to prove him wrong. When there's that little to be said, some propose it's better to WP:REDIRECT it to a different article. Your articles are good fits for this too, as they have logical redirect targets. (Their respective divisions or games of Sega.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before there are so many small articles about living people. And with redirects...the whole argument was that my Sega Studio article focuses too much on personell, so I thought I just branch off giving articles for each person (which is franky much more logical). Asking @The Banner: about this too, and give a more full explonation.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OSE. Other junk articles existing isn't a defense to keep yours. If anything, you're just pointing out other articles that need improvement or deletion. I'd stick to arguing how your articles in particular meet the GNG. Like I've said before, a lot of the arguments you get into are related to this advice, really. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I judge each and every article on it own merits, independent of the author or the status of the author. When I nominate for deletion, I have to state the reasons why and I have done that. That you have my serious attention is not your fault but is caused by a sockpuppeteer-vandal active on pages about Sega games (note: I am well and truly convinced that that is somebody else.) My nominations are perhaps harsh but I am not playing games nor do I nominate articles because they are written by you. The Banner talk 20:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. I had the idea that during a block, the blocked Wikipedian was only allowed to discuss the block itself...

@The Banner: Where and how did I ever state on feeling victimized on nomination? I'm not satisfied with your reasoning. Not notable enough? How? And the deletion of the List of Sega games is because of...what? Someone else...editing it or what? I have not seen vandalization on that page. I'm very confused --Tripple-ddd (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

a) That is the way I interpret the start of this section

b) If you don't like my reasoning, too bad for you. It is my reasoning and the community decides if it is valid. You are free to argue at the nomination pages.

c) No, you are not a vandal.

d) There is no need to ping me with every reply, I follow this page so I see the changes anyway.

The Banner talk 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Tripple ddd - its very simple. Your articles are short and lacking in sources. They don't appear to meet the WP:GNG. Generally, more than 1-2 sources and a short paragraph are expected when writing article. Like I said, personally, I think I would have just redirected, but AFD is completely acceptable as well.

Banner - I looked into this once - there's no hard rule on if its not okay to discuss other things while blocked. I brought it up at one of the Admin noticeboards once, and it seemed like usually Admin allowed it if it was constructive discussion. That's usually how I handle it too. And while I find it concerning how frequently Tripple ddd is constantly baffled by all the opposition he receives, when it usually boils down with him not knowing or following policy, his comments do seem to be in good-faith at this point, so I'm okay with the discussion as long as it doesn't devolve into name-calling or mudslinging type stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

To TheBanner: Most likely here won't be a major debate, since no one else will participate in this. Someone did tag these before and the response was "huh" and "just stub it" from others. Would you be okay if I remove the notice with the argument that I think that it is notable because the person is described with a clear descrption and source? Also you still haven't given a clearn asnwer on why you reverted List of Sega video games. For Sergecross, I read the notability bit, and I don't see how it applies to my article, unless you directly quote it. As far as I can meet the criteria for all GNG. I have not seen a rule on an article needing more than a few sentences and sources in order to create it. Again, quote me to it, because I have not seen it.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

You were moving things around without reaching consensus first. As a project of cooperation you have to invest time in discussion, certainly with contentious moves. You never tried to discuss the moves and recreations so every time (once be me, twice by somebody else) is was reverted as "no consensus". The Banner talk 18:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@The Banner: List of Sega video games is not a moved article, it was created by me...

In the summary: (Lukeno94 moved page List of Sega games to Lists of Sega games over redirect: rv move with no consensus) The Banner talk 18:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Sega video games and Lists of Sega games is seperate, the person had no reason to cause confusion with these redirects...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Masami Ishikawa

Alright, since you don't understand yet, let me break it down a little further for you. Here's an example based off of one of the article you created - Masami Ishikawa.

Here's what the WP:GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list..."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail....Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.

Here's what you did

1. You chose to use only 2 sources, which is the absolute bare minimum way to illustrate that multiple sources covered it.
2. You chose to use a source like Siliconera, which is classified as situational, as in, only use it in certain situations, like obscure Japanese games. Not really the case here.
3. You chose 2 sources that don't really show significant coverage - in both articles, the main subject is definitely Sega Hardware, not Ishikawa. They're interviews where he is being interviewed, and he's discussing Sega Hardware. Very little actually cover him, and when it is him, it's Ishikawa talking about Ishikawa, which isn't really a second party account anymore. Direct quotes from himself about himself would be first party accounts.
4. You wrote a very short article that has very little content on him, further suggesting that concerns about the lack of significant coverage.

Even if the articles are kept, you can't fault The Banner for nominating the articles, you literally did the most bare minimum job you could really do in making these articles, and didn't really change it all over the course of the week in between creation and deletion nomination.If anything, you're probably lucky that The Banner didn't do a detailed deletion nomination like my outline above, or they'd probably be more likely to be deleted or redirected... Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• So I don't know what first and second party accounts mean in this case. And your definition of significant coverage is still not consistent with the rule...it states: "...coverage...reliable sources...indepedent of the subject...suitable for stand alone article", how is this is not case with mine? Also it is still wierd to go after some articles at random, and then stop. Might as well go the whole way and nominate all articles that don't meet the criteria. "Interviews can be used in any article; other info can be used only for Japanese exclusive titles or titles there exclusive at the time the page being cited was published." It states interviews can be used? The sources I used are clearly reliable and usually state that they come from a primary source. For TheBanner: I didn't redirect the article, I created List of Sega video games...--Tripple-ddd (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• They don't cover Ishikawa in detail though, they cover Sega Hardware in detail. And yes, interviews may be used, but they're not second party accounts. Ishikawa's own words about himself (he's being interviewed) is a first party account, because the information is coming from the subject himself. It's not Siliconera writing about him (2nd party), it's Siliconera transcribing things Ishikawa said (1st party). Content like this doesn't really go towards meeting the GNG, because, as you even stated above, its a primary/1st party account. They need to be second party reports that discuss the subject in good detail.
• I don't especially see anything weird about nominating some articles for deletion and stopping. He has no requirement or responsibility to nominate a certain amount of articles or something. Nothing has been done wrong here.
• I don't really know how to break it down for you any further, other than advice for the future: When you write an article, try to use 4-5 sources minimum, make sure they cover the subject in detail, and aren't just interviews, and write more than a paragraph. Make it long enough that it needs to be split into a few subsections. If you can't do that right away, keep it in the draft space until there's more content, and its ready for the public. Doing the bare minimum will just continue to have your articles be targeted as candidates for redirect or deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you are admin, but I dont see the rules of a minimum of five sources and just being a paragraph, being a requirement.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a rule, it was my advice, based off my experiences here. It's up to you. If you like the process of being constantly targeted by people who like to redirect and delete articles, and rolling the dice to see if consensus will side with you at AFD for these bare-minimum articles, go for it, but no ones going to help you when you cry foul...because they're not doing anything wrong. If you'd like to see your articles stick around, try taking my advice of writing longer articles with more sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of Sega video games, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.First consensus, then moving or recreating. The Banner talk 07:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Hisashi Suzuki. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. The Banner talk 07:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Masami Ishikawa, you may be blocked from editing. The Banner talk 07:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please, stop your battlefield behaviour. Removing AfDs and edit warring is the most easy way to get blocked again. And then it will be for a longer term than a week. You clearly did not understand anything of the whole discussion of the last week. Take that on board quickly or face the consequences. Discussion IS necessary, edit warring and vandalism not. The Banner talk 08:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked again

Why exactly do you think I blocked you last week? I keep telling you that you need to stop fighting everyone every step of the way around here. You need to work collaboratively with others, discuss issues, and only make changes. Did you think making massive changes, without consensus, or even an edit summary, twice in a row, was doing this? (I'm referring to here and here with no discussion on the talk page whatsoever. You're also continually reverting here without consensus. Its also ridiculous that you multiple times tried to remove WP:AFD notices from articles you created. Add that you've done all of this immediately after your block ended. So you are blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I guess I'll try to defend my stance here. For the first couple of edits I did actually revert it back immadietly after realizing the mistake. For the deletion of the AFD notices, I did get warned and haven't done it since. And personally communicating just hasn't been the easiest, Lukeno94 regarding the Sega Sports Japan page simply blocked all discussion, leaving what should happen unresolved. Then there is Dissident who simply stops responding in the middle of discussion, again, leaving it unresolved and unclear (Sonic Team and Sega article talkpages), meaning does he care about the articles then at all? I just don't really know. Also Lukeno94 accused me for disregarding consensus with these edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=667838428&oldid=667726592, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=667652533&oldid=667639299, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sega&diff=667391185&oldid=667353982. However there was not backlash against these edits as far as I know. Again, communication with Dissident is not clear at times. Then there is also TheBanner blanking pages simply with "no notablity on it's own" without any discussion. I know for you all you can do is respond to the complaints you get, but there is a two way situation here. Unblock would be not possible I guess, but I'd like to request simply to block certain pages so that I can't edit them anymore? I'm not doing vandalism- And my last point, TheBanner simply leaves things sitting after his edits and does not take responsibitly which can't be good - look at the List of Sega video games, that is still on the infobox of the Sega article - which links to nothing. While List of Sega mobile games and List of Sega arcade video games still is there. It's not good to leave it like that for another month, tell someone to fix this.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is how you keep handling things when your changes are being contested. A person is not required to argue with you until you come to agreement, and if they stop, well then its time to revert in your favor. If a consensus is unclear, then it requires further discussion, not more reverting. That means its time to consult a WikiProject, or start up an WP:RFC. And if there's no consensus, then there's no change. On that note, that's what makes Banner's edit okay - editors are encouraged to be bold and make changes, but you need to stop being bold once someone objects to your change. At the example given, no one has objected to that change, so he has done nothing wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion

While you are blocked, you are not allowed to make other accounts to edit. Your "account" isn't blocked, you are blocked. You are not allowed to create new accounts like Mr.2994 (talk · contribs) or Iowespawl (talk · contribs) to carry out the same edits you were trying to make before you were blocked. If you continue to make more accounts, your block will continue to be extended. Please serve out your time of your block, and when you come back, discuss on talk pages. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Well you did not say I can not make accounts and then still edit...anywho I've been seeing some comments about how I badly contribute to Sega articles, rather than what I would perceive merely say just being a bit disruptive and hasty. And lastly I don't see the reason for reverting some of my edits particulary on this List of Sega arcade video games. I guess I ask the corresponding users if a ban until October is indeed right: :@Dissident93: :@Lukeno94: :@TheTimesAreAChanging: The definition of disruptive editing is - disrupting the process of improving an article. Except there is no attempt for improving it, and no tangible concept of improving is provided. Lukeno94 said he is will be making an improved Sega development studios article tough nothing has been done for months. As far as Dissident goes, there have been hoops certainly, but I did take the initiative of improving the Sonic Team and Sega articles, and in the end it came out okay. And then there is inconsistent behavior towards some of the changes, one one hand List of Sega video games get's removed, but List of Sega mobile games doesn't? About no one having objections of TheBanner edits, and thus make them okay, I myself still object, and that counts. Maybe other methods instead of edit warring would have worked if someone isn't willing to discuss the reasoning behind moves, but still. Overall, I'd say someone should fix certain things if it stays like that for 6 months now. There is still List of Sega video games in the infobox that leads to no where, should be removed. Maybe remove list of mobile games and arcade games from the infobox as well. Redundancy such as these two articles existing Sega Sports R&D and Smilebit. And more. Maybe even consider delete Sega development studios if its gonna stay that badly made and unsourced for yet another half a year. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Tripple-ddd, that is not a good justification for sockpuppeting. It's clearly evident in the blocking policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

To respond:

• First of all, it should be common sense that, if you're blocked, you shouldn't be making other accounts to edit. What would be the point of blocking anyone if they were free to just continue under a different account?
• Secondly, I very clearly warned your first sock puppet account that it was not okay to block evade, and yet you still went ahead and made a second account, and once that was blocked, attempted to edit through an IP.
• Third, block lengths are escalating in nature. Your first one was for a week, and when you instantly returned to editing against consensus, you were blocked again, this time for a month. It was recently extended to 3 months after you continued to make unconstructive edits through 2 sock puppet accounts and an IP. The block was extended partially due to that, and partially due to the fact that you haven't actually begun serving out the 1 month block yet, as you keep on creating sock puppet accounts.
• I have no opinion on any of the actual content in your changes, my objections are that they were made without a supporting consensus, or made while using sock puppet accounts while block evading - neither are allowed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No supporting consensus? Too often Dissident93 and plenty others have simply made edits without discussing anything.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've told you in the past why I reverted changes, but after the 10th+ time for the same exact things, I believe I shouldn't have too anymore. How comes it's basically you vs. other Sega editors? I don't recall once that any of the edits I did cleaning up your edits were reverted by anybody else besides you, and it's not like I'm out to revert every edit you do. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concepts of WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:NOCONSENSUS? As far as I've noticed, most of their edits are in-line with these guidelines. As I've said before, it's okay to boldly make a change, but if there is an objection (someone reverting the change), then it should stay in its original state until there is consensus to change it. If there is no consensus to change, no change is made. Since you're the one who is usually doing the proposing of changing, and they are objecting, its your burden to come up with a consensus to support your change, or it isn't implemented. This last concept is generally what makes their edits in the right, and yours in the wrong. I've explained this to you several times in the past, so you cannot claim ignorance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reffering to Dissident there have been times where I have objected and communication was broken. I communicate but it simply breaks off such is the case with Lukeno94. I discussed the concept of Sega Sports Japan existing, I provided primary sources, he provides secondary. After that he is completly unwilling to dicuss. Regardless, I still want to dicuss this one last time with :@Lukeno94: on these 3 points:

• It's been months since you promised a new version Sega development studios after rejecting my version and you haven't even provided any kind of concept. Are you working on it? If you are, can you at least share some concepts and intent of how your perception of what a good version of the article can be? At the end of it, if you won't do what you promised, it is better to change it to my version or delete it. The current version, is not good at all. No sources, random bolding just a disaster all around.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sega_video_games&diff=prev&oldid=669008553 You completed rejected this one too. But it got about 2000 page views a day for the week it was up. So essentially people find it useful. I know you complained about the size of the article, and it's now 37kb, and according to the rule there is no justification on splitting. And are you against the other lists? List of Sega mobile games and List of Sega arcade video games? Again if you are against all of it, provide a concrete concept on what you would want instead, and revert all of the lists instead of just one.

• Regarding if Sega Sports Japan exists or not. I provided sources: official website from Nintendo and official credits extracted from the game (no mention of Sega Sports Japan, ignore the Developer credit in Mobygames, pay attention to the credits extracted). You provided secondary sources, and have not really explained why these more credible.

• Firstly, Nintendo is always generic with their credits on their site. If I recall correctly, they simply list Nintendo instead of the exact EAD group, so I don't find this as proof of Sega Sports Japan not existing. Secondly, while I personally like and use Mobygames, I don't think you can use them as a source, since the info is user submitted. And even still, where on that page does it disprove Sega Sports Japan's existence? Just because it's not listed does not mean it doesn't exists, as stated eariler. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Tripple-ddd, stop rehashing the same argument. You made this, what, a month ago? Certainly a while back. You didn't gain any traction for it then, and you won't gain any traction for it now. Am I working on my concept? Not at the moment. I did start it, and gave up due to having a huge amount of things to do and needing a short break from Wikipedia. Since I came back, I've been working on other things. And as bad as the current article is, the simple fact of the matter is that your version has never been any better than the existing version - it is still inherently flawed, just in different ways. We've been saying the same thing over and over for several months now and the progress you've made on actually acting on people's comments has been like pulling teeth. And you still keep complaining about secondary sources - they're perfectly acceptable, and indeed, often preferable in many cases. You can't cherry-pick sources to "prove" something doesn't exist, either - and you're even cherry-picking within sources, even when other parts of the source clearly disagree with you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Answer my questions dammit. Users like Dissident, BlusterBlaster, Presn have provided concrete advice on articles which I then executed. Splitting articles, fix the formatting (basicilly things that happen when you edit through the VisualEditor and can't see the result of right away). Sega Wow, Sega AM2, SEGA Hitmaker, Amusement Vision etc. have been revised to little objections, which just used the content of the article you objected to. Then there is the fact that you are not okay with the list of regular games, yet the arcade games and mobile lists are ok? Why are not objecting to those? And you don't have a concept? Do you even understand anything in these Sega articles or have a clue about it, or have done research? I have done alot of reasearch, and Dissident has been saying that the content has been fine in that regard. Are you planning to use my written content for a new article at all? Or will you research on your own believing that you can do better, or what? I am pretty close to have done everything I wanted, so please have common sense for these last couple things. It just seems to you are apathetic if you are not even consistent with your objections anyway.

@Dissident93: Its not a matter of what is generic, it is a matter of pure facts. You can easily look at Nintendo titles, look at credits and apply them to a EAD department. Official documents, primary sources and a clear lineage of a department manager helps in this, and secondary sources pick it up. In regards to the Mario & Sonic games it is not that easy. Look at the credits extracted from Sonic games or 2000-2004 Sega games (and a small amount of others), you will easily see a: "Created by Sonic Team", "Created by Sega AM2" "By Team Andromoda" etc. Look at the Mario & Sonic games credits, it is like the Yakuza games, no explicit dev team credit is given. You won't find departments, you won't find interviews about specfific departments, you won't be able to apply the producers to a department. The producer of the first game is not applied to a specfic department no matter where you search in english and japanese. There is no official document and primary source on Sega Sports Japan applying to Mario & Sonic. A secondary source means nothing when after extensive reasearch no primary source can be found that what is claimed on the secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripple-ddd (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• You cannot demand that anyone answers your questions like that. I have nothing more to say beyond what has already been repeated many, many times by multiple editors, and has been ignored many, many times by you. Throwing personal attacks and allegations of ignorance my way will not help your case in the slightest... particularly since it is you that remains ignorant, despite everyone's efforts, of multiple key policies here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tripple, come on. I was willing to vouch for you to a certain point and you're starting to go well past it. I haven't been privy to the discussions on the other Sega articles aside from the main company one, so I've got no opinion on what the problems are there since I wasn't there for it, but here's the thing: Wikipedia has no deadlines; in the end nothing important is being jeopardized by improving on things slowly. This site is a work in progress in perpetuum; if you hit Special:Random, 7-9 times out of 10 you'll end up on an article that looks like total garbage and has looked like total garbage since the mid- to early 2000s when it was first created. It does no good to focus excessively on the current state of a given article, especially when you're no longer in a position where you can do something about it-- you've lost that chance by refusing to abide by the rules of establishing consensus, arguing with everyone until we're all blue in the face over minutiae, and now block evasion. If Luke wants to take renovating that article at his own pace, let him-- sour-graping about his way of doing it doesn't earn you credibility any more than socking does. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on renaming Category:Taito NESiCAxLive games

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views on the respective discussion page. Jotamide (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Akira Nishino (game producer)

The article Akira Nishino (game producer) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and no good redirect targets

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – czar 00:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Further block evasion

So, I couldn't help but notice that, after almost a month long absence, you typed that large section above yesterday. It seems no one responded, and then today yet another account came and started using your sandbox and editing the same Sega Staff articles you once did. Am I really to think this is some sort of crazy coincidence? Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: So it is likely that no one will ever respond. This leaves me frustrated. I see no point in this ban. I laid it all out above. Overall what seemed to broke the camels back for you was blanking and reverting these pages: Sega Sports R&D and List of Sega video games. Which all started with a argument with Lukeno94, who dropped arguments with me regarding the Sega Sports page. Now he is seemingly gone to. I don't want to use it as a justification, but he really was the main burden behind rejecting everything. Now only :@Dissident93: is left to further discuss matters on Sega articles. So please, I want you to do this. Please unban me and let me discuss the matters of the aforementioned articles (along with some incorrect edits at Sonic Team and some incorrections/disagreements/clarifications on Template:Franchises owned by Sega Sammy Holdings) with Dissident, and make sure you monitor the discussion until an conclusive agreement is reached. If I do something that is against the will of the two of you, please permanently ban me. And perhaps this will be seen as another ridiciolus and stupid reply with me, but if you don't answer this I will probably not stop socking accounts as I really want continue edit further and I get impatient and the whole planning of thsi stretches beyond more than a half a year now. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

...and you were doing so well until you promised to continue socking. Good god, look. I'm a big fan of WP:DRN and I'm sure things might have improved if things were taken there sooner, but everyone got sick of trying to fight you on everything. Writing a massive screed to get their attention on your talkpage is not likely to change that, as many, many lengthy attempts to discuss various issues with you have ended in nothing but frustration, and all involved parties have given up on trying to talk you through things and have been fixing those articles at their own pace, if they haven't moved on to other things entirely. I know Dissident has been editing Sega and a couple of other related articles sporadically per my watchlist, but again, it's on their own terms, not yours.

Additionally, while the primary logged reason for the block was continued warring and blanking of pages, it's also got a lot to do with your frankly abysmal attitude when it comes to editing collaboratively and will likely continue to be the reason you'll run into problems since you refuse to realise it. It's driven Sega and WP:VG editors to their wits' end to try and deal with you fighting consensus at every turn and making sweeping changes when several users and admins alike have repeatedly suggested you take a step back and take things more slowly. The fact that you're outright saying you'll sock just to get your way if no one listens is a very telling sign of how little you understand how you have erred; in essence you weren't blocked because you disagreed with such-and-such editors, you're blocked because your responses to disputes-- especially the reverting to your preferred version or socking when no one responds in a manner you wish-- is disruptive and beyond obtuse, and you're obviously showing no willingness to change that approach. As a matter of fact, if this situation ever is brought up on WP:AN or WP:ANI at this point, unless you show a clear realization of where you need to change your approach, I'd support an indef block or, if you continue this block evasion garbage, even an LTA block-on-sight/community ban. I've got no patience for this kind of conduct from you anymore, and I won't be the least bit surprised if no one else does. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you really serious here, Tripple? Your defense for continuing to sockpuppet and block evade is "impatience", and after conceding that you haven't stopped socking, and threaten to keep socking, you request to get unblocked early? Absolutely not. Blocks are supposed to be reset upon block evasion, not lessened. This is ridiculous. You clearly unable to work constructively with others, and you're wasting the time of too many constructive editors. You are indefinitely blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a sidenote here. {{ping}} doesn't work unless you sign your comment, which you forget to do. So nobody received notifications from the section you created above, and that is one reason why you got no response. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is true. I haven't been pinged either, the only reason I'm in the know is because people keep notifying of the socking. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also signing a comment after you've made the edit (as Triple d has just done) doesn't work either. It has to be in the same edit as the {{ping}}. So you should delete the section and copypaste with the comment in the edit. --The1337gamer (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: I will admit that editing live articles without consensus is a mistake, and I blame entirely me for not learning how to use Wikipedia. However ever since I learned how to use the Sandbox, and do proposals instead - I don't see such a big issue in the way of doing things that way. I can't figure out how to make use WP:AN, WP:ANI and WP:DRN to potentially make me unblock, can someone explain how that process works? Like I mentioned, I'll go for the harshest punishment if I make my objected sandboxes go live without approval (at least the ones that were previously objected, and I also won't make personell pages unless someone approves because admidettly I have not read into the rules into it that much).

@Sergecross73: :@The1337gamer: Well, now I feel stupid. Regardless tough my intent when being frustrated is now clear, so that pretty much dampers my chances of my attempt at redmption here. But still not like I have any motivation to sock anyway - months of hard work is now essentially gone. So really, all I want is a last chance to communicate to work out how to implement my sandboxes.

WP:DRN is a board for dealing with content-related disputes, not unblock requests, and unless you really think you can present a strong enough case to call Serge's block into question, I wouldn't ever take an unblock request to AN/ANI if I were you-- it's a circus in there. use {{unblock}} on a new section in your talkpage if you want to appeal a block, but an appeal will only be enacted if an admin sees enough behavioral evidence that you will not resume the same disruptive behavior that got you blocked in the first place. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 17:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "I'll accept the harshest punishment" claims ring pretty empty considering how many times you've evaded your short term blocks. You haven't accepted a single repercussion yet, why would you do it now? Not that it matters, like I said, continued socking extends blocks, you have no grounds to request a shortened block when you haven't even gone a month without socking, on multiple occasions. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

New section

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Lukeno94:

• The following is a response to the all the users that were involved in the fallout of my ban, it brings out my whole prespective

So the narrative that you are trying to build is that I listened nobody ever, and that you are no different than others trying to give advice. Let me prove that this wrong, by going over everything you have said.

For references the articles that I revised and are talked about.

• The article that describes the studios
• The list of games
• The list of arcade games
• List of mobile games
• The studio subsidairies that I revised: Sega Wow, Sega-AM2, SEGA Hitmaker, Amusement Vision, Smilebit, Sonic Team

This what you said:

• if every internal Sega studio was located on that article, then it would be grossly oversized, and most of the split-out sub-studios have notability of their own - given the list of games Sega AM2 developed, for example, they clearly have notability (sole developer of Daytona USA and OutRun, just as a very basic example). Many other companies have similar article structures here, like Rockstar. However, a bigger issue than that is the fact that you have redirected pages to other ones on multiple occasions with no attempts to discuss being made. (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Your very first advice is having seperate studio articles and I did that.

• Looking at it myself, I strongly agree with that. All of the Sega articles need work, but making one even bigger clusterfuck is not the way to go about it. Triple-ddd, of course, was responsible for that particular mess. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You suggest not to link everything into one article, I did that.

• If you see little wrong with that complete farce you made, then that's quite concerning. WP:CIR. Your proposals make things objectively worse, it's as simple as that. It doesn't matter what a section of Sega is legally, or what your original research says. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is where you start your unreasonable behaviour starts. Objectively worse, without any reasonable and conclusive arguments to back that claim up. Not helpful.

• That's one big issue, yes. One big problem I foresee is that a lot of these Sega subsidiaries (or whatever Tripple-ddd wants to call them) seem to have become defunct in 2004, if not earlier - which means finding sources on them online in English is a bit of an issue, beyond verifying that they made the games in question. I'm inclined to believe that the information does exist somewhere, in ye olde Sega fanzines or Japanese sources, particularly due to the importance of some of these developers - but those are not things I have access to. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well you wanted sources, I added that.

• And those issues with formatting, as well as the latest batch of rubbish without consensus, is why I've reverted. Again. Keep this up, Tripple-ddd, and I will be taking you to ANI to get a topic ban. Also, your ping didn't work. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Suddenly, you come about with non-specfic advice such as "lots of issues" and "bunch of rubbish". Can not act upon it. Sorry.

• Tripple-ddd, if I listed every single issue with those pages, I'd be here for a week. The biggest and most obvious ones, are, however;

Again, generalizing by saying "not having the time", not helpful at all.

• A 90MB list of every single Sega game is stupidly oversized. Do you see one list of every Nintendo game ever? No, no you don't. Same goes for Atari.

The lists aren't 90 MB anymore

• Even if the list wasn't so oversized, it is largely redundant to the things shown in the Lists of Sega games article.

As I will say again, your standards of what is redundant is backwards, because then tons of Wikipedia content should be deleted then.

• Merging every Sega studio into one article is dumb. You would end up with a grossly oversized mess, and we know full well from experience that you don't give a damn about whether they're independently notable or not, since you tried to argue that the Sonic Team should be dumped in there with everything else.

Again I fixed this.

• Your formatting just plain sucks - massive lists that just go across the article with nothing whatsoever to back them up.

I added sources to back them up. The lists aren't in the article anymore.

• Even worse, you removed tabulated data to create ridiculous numbers of one-sentence lines in the development studios article, and in the process, removed a whole bunch of references (yes, I know they were YouTube videos) without attempting to replace them.

I added sources. One sentence are now minor in a similar of the current article. Here you just throw random problems around which you think are immadietly obvious.

• In your development studios articles, the dates are all over the place, and many are blatantly in the wrong section.

I fixed this. Its in chronological order.

• So in short, no, your version is objectively worse in both cases, and I'm not being "extreme" when I talk about a topic ban - you are wilfully, and incompetently, messing up live articles because you don't have the slightest clue how to actually do things properly. And the fact that you've managed to make bad articles worse is equally ridiculous. I gave up making "constructive claims" when it became apparent that you don't listen, and guess what? Since you reverted back at one point, that only reinforces the "lalalala can't hear you" even more! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again no conclusive and no reasonability regarding the "objective quality". You continous claim of issues continue to be unspecific.

• You clearly have no grasp of anything whatsoever. OK, perhaps there is a grossly oversized general Nintendo list (which still doesn't make me incorrect, since I was talking about a games list)... that hardly makes this any better. When the vast majority of the games list would be redundant, then the thing an intelligent person would do would be to create a "list of Sega games for the PS2" or whatever. Pages over 60 kB in size are generally recommended to be split up into smaller articles; the existence of other messes does not mean you should be basing your changes on them. You list articles tagged with multiple "this needs improvement" tags for your justification... that's just lame. As for Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development (for example), it doesn't have 6000 single line sentences! It has the relevant things located in tables! The size wasn't the issue predominantly with the Sega development studios article... it was the incompetent formatting that is just as bad as when you started. Something, I note, you still fail to spot. "Hiroshi Kataoka joined in 1992 working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing. His debut as director was the Fighting Vipers series, Fighters Megamix and Sonic The Fighters." - this is in the 2000-2004 section. The grammar is hopeless, there is a distinct lack of punctuation, and last time I checked, all four of those named games came out well before 2000! That is ONE example of the complete and utter shambles you've made. You do realize competence is required to edit Wikipedia, right? Because you are perhaps one of the least competent editors I've come across. If you seriously think this standard of grammar and syntax is acceptable, then please exit to your right, and leave Wikipedia to people who are actually competent enough to edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lists are not 60MB anymore. Lists that you complain about abundant and some that I made (like the Sega mobile games) you seemingly have no problem with. Revert all these other lists as well to be consistent, so you can be taken seriously. Single liners in small number now in line with the current article. Again, you throw random accusations and then suddenly problems random problem no.4 out of the blue, and with grammar it is just unspecfic. Sorry can not act upon this.

• Agreed, I overstepped the mark, and I do apologize for going too far. I stand by my CIR remarks (that they need to be wary of it as they appear to be fairly badly failing at it, not so much the hyperbole), which I think are pretty justified given all of the things I've seen from this user, but not the rest of the OTT bits. Breaking things into decade lists is probably a good idea, particularly as that would allow it to be more than just a list of articles with little else present. And I retain my strong objection to the arbitrary merging of pretty much every development studio into one big mess, particularly since some of them worked independently on some of the most important games Sega published (and this is disregarding Sonic Team). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the studios have seperate articles now.

• How on earth do you not see the issue with "Hiroshi Kataoka joined in 1992 working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing. His debut as director was the Fighting Vipers series, Fighters Megamix and Sonic The Fighters." Try reading it out loud (unless you're not a native speaker of English, in which case this may be the root of your problems) as it is written, and you'll see it's all wrong. "working with Yu Suzuki since Virtua Racing" doesn't make any grammatical sense whatsoever. There should be a comma after 1992. The entire second sentence is completely incorrect in terms of grammar (not to mention the missing accent on début). Bear in mind this is just one line of all of the changes you've made, and there are several glaring problems with it. And you're missing the point entirely; you've changed an article that already exists into an objectively worse version. It doesn't matter remotely that article X, Y, Z need cleaning up as well... that's hardly an excuse for butchering an existing article. There are substantially fewer Sega arcade games, to the point where that article is 35kB smaller than the games list mess you made, not to mention that it is below the 60 kB "you really should split above this" size. The List of Sega arcade system boards list is in pretty bad need of splitting due to being well over 120kB; some of those boards are probably notable enough for their own articles (I'm no expert). Besides, you're complaining that the Sega pages are bad, and yet you're using those bad pages as justification for you making one existing article worse, and a mess out of another article? That's mind boggling. We're not asking you to present a GA or FA standard article. Honestly, at this stage of proceedings, I doubt most of us are that bothered, and many of the articles wouldn't ever be able to be GAs, due to a multitude of reasons. We're asking you to provide changes that actually comply with the standard guidelines for basic articles, and so far, you've not only failed to do so, you've refused to even attempt to see where you're going wrong, but continue to insist that you're right. And worst of all, you're making these wholesale, totally-against-consensus changes in live articles - despite knowing full well about your sandbox/userspace, and despite being told for months that you should make your edited version in there! None of us are happy with the status quo, but when the alternative is your objectively worse version, which you keep reverting to over a long period of time... there's little we can do other than revert your mess. You should also note how various editors have cleaned up the main article after your various mess-making sessions with it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding grammar - it is fixed now as far as I can see it can go, and the text that you complain has been up on the seperate studio and employee articles. There have been no complaints, and little attempt to fix grammar. Again you go on about how articles should be fixed, yet don't do anything of that yourself in that time, so I ask why do you care? Again no conclusive and no reasonability regarding the "objective quality" that is worse.

• No, the most common name is. Sources are but one of the many issues with your mess. I agree with TTAAC that not all of the divisions are notable, but you've tried to say that every single one isn't notable, and only ever backed down on one, regardless of how wrong your position is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Added sources, the studios are seperate articles again. You come about with non-specfic advice such as "lots of issues" and "bunch of rubbish". Can not act upon it. Sorry.

• Proposal 1: I'm still objecting to your arbitrary merger. Sega AM2 received coverage of their own and worked on a huge number of major Sega arcade games. You've never once acknowledged this. This means they easily justify their own article. Hitmaker are smaller, but as the developers of Crazy Taxi and the Virtua Tennis series, they probably justify their own article. Amusement Vision were owned by Sega but weren't a Sega development studio, so that's hardly an appropriate merger. Sega Wow may justify a merger, as may Smilebit. But with other companies, even the minor subsidaries often get their own articles (see EA Montreal and various other EA ones), and I see 0 value in having one ridiculously oversized article which will be poorly structured and make very little sense. Your modified article is as bad as it ever was, with dates that are absolutely all over the place, lots of single-sentence lines, tables with totally unstandardized widths and laughably obvious grammatical issues ("non-japanese company" is in the first freaking sentence of the article!)

Responded to all the points but regarding table width it is consistent now. That's the only thing I can make out of the table complaints. Regarding tables it is better now than the current tables.

• Proposal 2: Terrible idea. As has been explained to you before, a list like that would be grossly oversized - and indeed, the article in your sandbox is just that. Plenty of totally arbitrary sections as well. As was pointed out before, if you must make these lists, then have them by decade.
• Proposal 3: You're replacing a poorly formatted and thought-out list with another poorly formatted and thought-out list. Bad idea.
• In conclusion; please make proposals with things that meet Wikipedia's standards, and please actually listen to people's responses - in the first draft, I'm struggling to see how you've changed anything since multiple editors (not just me, and stop trying to make it look like I'm the only objector here) pointed out how bad your formatting was, and even after we pointed out specific issues... issues which you've blatantly ignored. Short form; sort out your mess, or stop mucking around. I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself over and over again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Again the arcade list has received no complaints.

• How does my point on "non-japanese" not make sense? Anyone who understands the English language knows that it should be Japanese, not japanese! And that's the first sentence - if you are this incompetent when it comes to writing, then what are you doing here? The issue is not your referencing, it's the fact that you are not listening to anything people have to say about the issues with your grammar and syntax, even when we repeatedly tell you what is wrong. Amusement Vision was a second-party studio as the article describes, and Sega development studios would be first-party companies. It doesn't matter one jot where the subsidiaries were housed. The dates are all over the place, and because of your hopeless formatting, it makes it a nightmare to read. "You haven't created a single video game article" - sorry, but you're totally and utterly wrong there. In fact, it's hilarious that you can say that, because it just proves your incompetence further. Colin McRae Rally (video game) - note the lack of two hundred thousand single-sentence lines there. "Nobody but you is objecting" - probably because most people have given up on you and your WP:IDHT ways, but people certainly have objected in previous discussions. You keep saying the same rubbish about GAs and FAs over and over... but your proposals are objectively worse in numerous ways that I, and others, have repeatedly described over and over. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Responded to all these points previously. Again, regarding grammar, I fixed all that you pointed out, but for the rest that gone since live in seperate articles there have been no complaints. You again seem to push a a wrong narrative of you not being the only confusing person.

• So let's get this straight; when presented with evidence that I have written video gaming related articles (which is what you said I'd never done - I'll quote you directly: "You haven't created a single video game article"), your defence to having your bare-faced lies called out is "not relevant"? Good one. Almost every single person who has commented on the state of the articles themselves has said your formatting is poor. I've documented multiple issues with it several times, including right here in this thread. The very first line of text in the main body had an obvious error in it, when you displayed a nationality using a lowercase letter. I've pointed that out several times as well, and not only have you failed to acknowledge it until now, the mess you dumped into mainspace (AGAIN) still had that very same error! If you are incapable of spotting such basic errors, then you shouldn't be editing. Period. Oh, and don't try and call the "no one else has reverted" card... plenty of people did earlier on, and the only reason that no one else is right now is due to the fact that I'm getting there first. Go ahead, look at the history of Sega development studios; you'll see that, in March, Dissident93 and TheTimesAreAChanging were reverting you, not me. You can also see how it didn't take me long to spot that you were adding your mess into mainspace before I reverted you, meaning no one else had the chance to. AV's own article describes it as a second-party studio, use your damn eyes for once! Stop lying, stop bullshitting, and either actually listen to people who have replied here, or leave Wikipedia to people who actually do listen. But look at this the other way - not one person has, as of yet, reverted back in any of your wholesale changes. Whilst multiple editors have reverted you across various articles. That says EVERYTHING about the mess you're making. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Like above still pushing a confusing narrative.

• Once again; the fact that other articles aren't done in an optimal way does not mean that this article should be done in a sub-optimal manner. Those can be improved as and when people get around to it. The existence of the tables is justified, but the way they were structured in the existing article is much better than in your proposal, as they actually served a purpose there, and are informative - more so than your proposal is generally. The way that article is structured is generally better as a result. It doesn't matter exactly what the exact buzzwords for each division/section/whatever of Sega were; if they worked independently on major titles (not talking about gaming franchises, but individual games), as most of them seem to have done, they justify their own articles, just like the divisions of any other company. It also doesn't matter where they were based, for that matter. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No clue what you are talking about. Still pushing the "objectively worse" narrative.

• Not as informative, because the tables give no context whatsoever, and the prose focuses far more on personnel than such an article needs to. I haven't once used the term incoherent in this particular discussion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I did away with the personell info, and added it to their own employee artciles (which seemingly was a problem for some, but I'll get to that later)

• Yes, it's a history article, which means that it should focus on what was produced, not anywhere near as heavily on the people. The tables before showed exactly what each division did; right now, most of the divisions have been anonymized into very little within your version. No, there shouldn't be a page on every single person involved. I already said the tables weren't perfect in the main article, but they're a darn sight more consistent than the ones in your version are, and actually serve a purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
• As I've already said, several times, the existing tables are too detailed and the number of games mentioned should be trimmed down to just a couple of particularly notable titles, but the tables in your version are pointless and serve no purpose. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I did this, tables now have just a few main titles.

• Yes, the tables existence is justified. No, the versions in your version don't serve any purpose. These are not mutually exclusive things. I've already documented plenty of other issues with your version on multiple occasions; I am not going to repeat them for a third (at least) time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sadly I can't make anything out of this.

• Specifics are inappropriate when there are issues that are widespread. I recommend you actually read what you've written in the article, rather than just glancing at it and deciding that everything is perfect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This either.

@PresN:

• Now. Can some one post revisions for what Tripple-ddd wants and what was there before? As far as I can tell the old Sega Studios (or whatever) page was a dumb list of every game made by every subsidiary/team, which is a waste of an article, while Tripple-ddd's version is a pile of wonky tables that looked pretty bad, though I didn't look too closely at it. An article about Sega's studios should be about the studios themselves, not a listing of games- if you want that, then make a new sublist to List of Sega games with a column for the developing sub-studio. If you do that, though, you'll need a better source than a wiki- I don't care how they got the "documents", a wiki is not a reliable source. --PresN 18:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I seperated the lists and studio articles. I also added official sources and databases as sources for the articles.

• Hmm. So, both versions have the major problem of the overbearing list(s) of every game Sega ever made- that shouldn't be there in any version of the list, as it's far, far too large for the article. Besides that, Tripple-ddd's version is more of a history of the studios, which is better than the bare listing of studios in the original. On the flip side, the formatting is awful- those logos are in no way covered under fair use, there's random bolding everywhere, the text should be structured as prose, not a bulleted list, and there's no explicit citations for anything. An external link to a wiki doesn't make up for that- not that the original's youtube links are much better. I think that a version of Tripple's page without the logos or bloated game tables, and with the text as prose (a la Bungie, though they're a much smaller company than Sega) instead of a listy style (see WP:PROSELINE) would be pretty good. --PresN 20:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Logos are removed, there is no bolding and I added citations - granted it is not a prose, but in general it can be fixed easily. And this is where Lukes claims come in false. Here someone claims, with the advice implemented the article "could be pretty good", rather than "objectively worse forever".

@The1337gamer:

• Another issue with the newer one was that many Sega subsidary articles were redirected to it. There seems to have been disagreements on which subsidaries should have been merged and which should remain separate articles. I agree though that it would be better to have an article that writes about studio history without mixing in lists for hundreds of games. All the subsidiary articles are in bad shape as well so I'm not what is the best decision for them, merge or stay separate and expand. There's also leftover ignored articles like this Sega PC, that need dealing with. – The1337gamer (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the lists and improved the state of the subsidiaries (which have gotten little complaints). And also redirected the Sega PC article.

• I wouldn't be so sure. Sega AM2's old website from 10 years ago is still archived: link. There's a bunch of news/blog posts there that might be useful. I'm sure there are other archived sources that could be found and used, might be worth checking the magazine archive as well. The1337gamer (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I used the old AM2 website as refernece for improving and adding citations.

• I'm not talking about lists of games though. We can sort that out later. The priority first should be to expand these articles, write more about studio history and development, and decide which articles should be merged. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems agreement has been reached with with the current staple of 6 studios and the infos within it for each.

@TheTimesAreAChanging:

• Defunct developers can be sufficiently notable to merit their own page. There are still multiple divisions within Sega, as there are within EAD, but their older names are generally better known. Ultimately, not every one of Sega's Dreamcast-era teams has a demonstrable need for a dedicated article, and general guidelines are less important than what works best for a specific topic. Tripple-ddd has certainly bitten off more than he can chew with regard to satisfying the sourcing requirements we would like to see.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have pretty much met sourcing requirements for adding sources for every claim. And as I said overall staple of 6 studios have been agreed upon.

@Dissident93:

• Actually, the majority of your edits on the main Sega page were reverted or edited further by me or another user. Also, List of Sega games and Sega development studios are formatted terribly, and should be more like the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We had this argument before but I want to still make clear that it was an collaborative effort (with some hoops but still).

• Most of the other big game company articles are just as badly written, it's just that nobody has gotten around to them yet. Having every game a huge company ever published seems way too bloated, especially for one like Sega. I think that info would be better suited for a Sega specific Wikia. Listing every game they developed, (based on the Nintendo EAD page), would already be big enough, but wouldn't be as badly formatted as your sandboxes are. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Dissident has the same sentiment as Luke in terms of the opinion that most articles are bad anyways, and anything similar just further would just do further damage despite the majority of articles being like this. However there are no claims of "objectively worse quality" at least.

• The information is generally accurate (only had to correct you on certain things). The main problem with your proposed edits is that it's extremely bloated and contains way too much information, albeit mostly accurate, along with being badly formatted according to WP:MOS. If you just followed how the Nintendo EAD article is formatted, I don't think anybody would have an issue with that, honestly. So if you want to know directly how to fix all these issues, here is what I (and others I suppose) suggest:

Get rid of all games Sega simply published. Make a separate article if you must, like List of products published by Nintendo (although this article is formatted even worse than your sandboxes, ugh. Might be the next thing we work on after this) Only keep games they directly developed for, and try to keep them grouped under the specific team if possible, like the EAD article. I know Sega's dev groups can be confusing though, so this could be a problem perhaps. Omit stuff that separate articles could handle (I.E. Sonic Team wouldn't have their games listed, so just add a redirect link to simplify things). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC) It matters when the article is massive, that's the entire reason separate articles exist. Sega published hundreds of games during the Mega Drive/Saturn era, so I'm saying to omit all of them and just list the games they (and their 2nd party companies) directly developed for. Does anybody else disagree? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As a whole this discussion was dropped by Dissident which is a problem. I have however scaled down the bloat that he mentioned with no employee information in the Sega Studio article, the list of games is just a list without divisions etc.. He, however, was at leask ok with the List of games and the Sega Studios article staying live. He mentions that the information is "generally accurate" making it an improvment over the current article and not at all "objectively worse mess" that Luke refers to.

So lets get down the list and see what each suggested, what I implemnted and see how Luke comes out of this.

Luke's comments:

• Studios should be seperate articles
• Add more sources
• Oversized article
• Stuff about tables, which now are in consistent width and normal information (tried the best make out of his comments)
• Removed personell info
• Fixed grammar issues mentioned
• Between his arguments he goes on about how I am pretty much oblivious and not worth his times, and the article is beyond saving and should not happen.

Now for PresN:

• He immadietly had this advice
• Have list of games
• Add sources to list of games
• Fix tables
• Have a prose

The1337Gamer

• Remove Lists
• Improve subsidiary articles
• Lets reach agreement on which studios should have pages

TheTimesAreAChanging Add more sources

Dissident93

• Refers to article as bad as most other articles
• Mentions to remove some of the bloat

Admidettly messing up live articles is a mistake, and since I learned to use sandboxes, I am using it only propsals.

I hope that with this I have been able to illustrate my stance. I think that you can see when clearly communicated, I can work with someone, as I implemneted these changes that were suggested. I can't work with someone who can't clearly communicate his problems or just drops off converations.

I made revised the subsidairy articles. I fixed grammar when pointed. I removed the entire bloat of employee information and the lists no longer have the division listed. I removed the bolding, I hope you can see it yourself in the articles I posted above.

I'm not trying to say that I never did wrong, but Lukes hostile and genelarized behaviour and ridicilous "objevtively worse" claims, as well as communication drops have caused problems. As you can see no one even attempted to further discuss matters, leaving it at suggestions and then leaving it at that. The reason for my ban was because discussions on List of Sega video games and Sega Sports R&D were simply dropped. I tried to communicate, but no one responded back. What am I supposed to assume? That they might be ok with? So I reverted. Again, the reasoning for my ban "disruptive editing" by :@Sergecross73:. Which means that I stopped the process of an article being improved. The problem is however that there is no attempt. "Disruptive editing" is an unfit description. There is a clear on going debate. But the other doesn't communicate properly. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please provide a rationale that doesn't take an hour to comprehend. Please see WP:GAB for details. Max Semenik (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of The Key of Avalon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Key of Avalon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Key of Avalon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hardlight for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hardlight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardlight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 22:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Series of unblock requests

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My previous appeal was too long. So I'll try to condense it here, in case your are not convinced by the appeal, you should still see the detailed write-up of the discussion at the Wikiproject Videogames and my interpretation of it on my talk page, Why I was banned: * Editing live articles without consensus * Me making blank pages when there are content disputes and not consulting WP:DRN * Threatening to break rules by intent when I was frustrated by mistake * Doing things, like making pages for employees, where I do not know the rules of it exactly Why I think will behave right again * Since for a while I have not been editing major things at live articles, but rather doing proposals on sandboxes first. I will continue to so, for every page I will make. * When an argument goes unresolved I will consult WP:DRN fron now on * I will even a accept a blacklisting if I something that admins see as ban worthy. Contributions which I see as a favourable of mine: I made the current Sega page, which was this as the previous version, in terms of content writing and intentions. Tough many other editors have edited it further for improvements. I also made contributions to the Sega Sammy Holdings pages, the Category:Sega divisions and subsidiaries, and employee pages like Toshihiro Nagoshi all with decent results. Also my version of Sega development studios page is well received by users Dissident93 with "info is accurate but...", and admin PresN said: "if you implement these changes it could be pretty good" (tough he hasnt responded since.) I still also need to respond to pages such The Key of Avalon (deletion tag was addded) and Sonic Team where there are specific tags and changes which are in the need to be discussed. I also dont want to use this as justification, but the main burden behind objecting all of my propsals was Lukeno94. He is seemingly gone from Wikipedia. Without him, I am very sure that frustration and me acting out of hand is guarenteed not to happen anymore.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that this is your fourth block for essentially the same thing, I don't see how unblocking you will benefit Wikipedia in any way. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As a reference point to the reviewing admin.

• He was initially blocked because he kept on making edits against consensus. Discussions would be on-going, and not in his favor, and as soon as the others stopped responding to every single time he argued, he'd go and make the edits anyways.
• He was blocked the second time because he returned to do this as soon as his blocked expired, and was also repeatedly removing AFD notices off of article he created.
• His block was extended because he got caught socking multiple times from a variety of users.
• His block was made indefinite a few days ago when he was once he was caught socking, and threatened to continue to do so in the future.

His whole time of being here has basically been one huge instances of WP:IDHT, and refusing to accept policy. (Even the most basic stuff like write according to what sources say or prose is preferred over bulletpoints.) This why I made it an indef block. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not recall writing something that is not in sources? Can you point me to such a case, I know that recently that has been things about the Sega page about Phantasy Star Online 2 being the most successfull digital game, but the source was for the successfull mobile line up rather Phantasy Sar. I say it again, but I don't see how disruptive editing applies, as that would imply that there would be a clear and concious effort towards improving the article (like Sega development studios). But there have not been, I feel. Yes there have been, bypassing mentions of Lukeno94 doing a version of the article, but it didnt happen and now won't happen. Regarding proses in my sandbox version Sega Studios, I did immadietly (or at least eventually, can't remember) follow up with that advice (not that currently visible in my version).

Like your insistence that "Sega Sports" doesn't exist despite the fact that many reliable sources credit them as a game maker? Or fighting every step of the way when you're being informed that 2 sentence/ 2 first party source BLP articles are not acceptable. And the endless socking. All these sorts of thing. You fight everyone every step of the way. Sergecross73 msg me 18:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP articles. I see how they aren't acceptable. However there are some employee pages like Shun Nakamura, Mie Kumagai or Kazuyuki Kishino that don't fulfill the criteria as well. I know that excuse doesn't work, and I'dd be willing to improve on that front, however I still feel it is annoying that only recently created articles are checked to fill criteria. Regarding the Sega Sports page, I wasn't fighting. I still feel that conversation could go on. As I said secondary sources get their sources from primary sources, and the primary sources aren't anywhere to be seen in the secondary sources. That's where it stopped.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

reason = "Given that this is your fourth block for essentially the same thing, I don't see how unblocking you will benefit Wikipedia in any way." :@OhNoitsJamie: The four blocks are not esentially the same thing at all. You can read it more in depth in the converstations at the talk page. The first two blocks were because of blanking pages without consensus, and the other two because of things that didn't effect Wikipedia directly, but broke rules of it. Either way, my edits are in good faith, and they aren't of very high profile pages and are basicilly neglected, thus not making very "disruptive". I basiclly also just listed positive contributions as well above, which would further coninue if you unblock.

Decline reason:

"Not very disruptive" is a long way from being not disruptive. I really do not see how unblocking you can benefit the encyclopedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Replace "for essentially the same thing" with "in a span of three months" and there is an even more compelling reason not to lift this block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Socking 5+ times, and threatening to keep doing it, is not good faith editing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing in good faith means basicilly not vandalazing. Which I have not been doing.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sooo...good-faith socking and good-faith editing against consensus and good faith removal of AFD notices on your articles? Good luck with that alibi. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it didn't lead to vandalization of pages. Overall I guess I could fall in the middle spectrum of following every rule that is one supposed to follow in good faith editing, and doing deliberate damage to Wikipedia.--Tripple-ddd (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it didn't lead to vandalism. Socking is not acceptable. End of story. You trying to justify your actions after being clearly warned that block evasion is not okay and will be further punished is ridiculous. --The1337gamer (talk)

Nothing I have done that lead to this is acceptable. However the question was that would I benefit Wikipedia anyway because I was banned multiple times in a span of 3 months despite warnings. My argument is yes, I would benefit with the foresight of not having done any deliberate harm. Execution wise my contributions have been seen as negative. However content wise, feedback was neutral and I do put alot of time and dedication into that content. --Tripple-ddd (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled on this talk page while trying to see if I could save the Hardlight article and thought I could add a few things. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the relationship between good-faith editing and disruptive editing—realize that the two are not mutually exclusive. Wikipedia appreciates good-faith contributors—obviously, without them we cannot exist. However, in many situations, even good-faith contributions can be disruptive to the editing process. I like the wording the Arbitration Committee begins many of their decisions with: "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned" (source). The purpose of blocking you is not to prevent you from or punish you for making good-faith contributions, but it's to prevent the disruption associated with some misunderstanding or ignorance of Wikipedia principles. I hope this helps clarify a few things. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It is what I have been saying anyways. I have neither gone to complete opposite end of either good faith editing or disruptive editing... --Tripple-ddd (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding certain artciles

@OhNoitsJamie:

@SwisterTwister:

Here are a few sources for The Key of Avalon.

Fan made blog: http://radio-weblogs.com/0118995/2003/08/16.html Gamespot article explaining in detail: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sega-to-begin-beta-test-on-card-based-arcade-game/1100-6026144/ And also using Japanese wikipedia

@BlusterBlaster:

Regarding this sentence: "In the digital game market, Sega's biggest success is the MMORPG Phantasy Star Online 2, along with their mobile game line-up"

Can be reworded to along with the added sources: In the digital game market, Sega's successes include the MMORPG Phantasy Star Online 2 and their mobile game line-up.

Source for PSO2 success: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/ir/library/pdf/stockholder/2015/201503_2q_kabutsu_e_final.pdf (Page 9). searching through IR material on Sega Sammy website, you can easily find other material on PSO2 being a success story for Sega...

Source for mobile success: https://www.segasammy.co.jp/english/pdf/release/20150629_sgn_presentation_e.pdf , same IR type material I posted before

@Dissident93:

Regarding the Sonic Team article. You incorrectly renamed into CS2 from 1991-2000. It was called CS3, otherwise the sentence about CS4 (UGA) would make no sense.

Source on Sonic Team being CS3: http://sega.jp/fb/creators/vol_22/1.html

Also why remove United Game Artists games on Games developed by Sonic Team and affiliates? Unless you divest UGA from Sonic Team with a seperate article, you shoudn't do this. And why remove supervised games that are included on the official Sonic Team website? And lastly there is gap between the PlayStation 2 and Gamecube games section, you should go fix that, thanks.

Sorry, mate, but during a block you are only allowed to discuss your block on your talk page. You are now trying to participate in AfD-discussions. Please stop that. The Banner talk 08:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request (4)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"Not very disruptive" is a long way from being not disruptive. I really do not see how unblocking you can benefit the encyclopedia. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony.bradbury: I pretty meant it by not being disruptive. Again the question is, would I benefit, and I already answered this: Nothing I have done that lead to this is acceptable. However the question was that would I benefit Wikipedia anyway because I was banned multiple times in a span of 3 months despite warnings. My argument is yes, I would benefit with the foresight of not having done any deliberate or significant harm. Execution wise my contributions have been seen as negative. However content wise, feedback was neutral and I do put alot of time and dedication into that content.

Decline reason:

This does not at all address the reasons for your block, nor does it explain what you'd do to avoid similar issues from recurring. While good faith is important, it's not sufficient to edit Wikipedia successfully. Huon (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To be clear, your actions in relation to editing articles only got you a month long block. It was the repeated instances of socking, with threats to continue to do so, that got you indefinitely blocked. Your whole argument is ridiculous - its concretely disruptive to edit against consensus (first blocks) and block evade (later blocks). The fact that you keep breaking policies is disruptive. Period. Also, there's just no way you're going to be entirely unblocked here - you've never come close to serving out your one or three month blocks. Its not like an admin is going to reward you for not serving out your shorter blocks with unblocking you completely. At the very best case scenario, you're going to get a reset 3 or 6 month block, though I doubt that, as I've never seen a third or fourth attempt at an unblock request. Usually they take away your talk page access after three rejected requests... Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The usual way to get your indef block after some systematic problems lifted is standard offer: wait 6 months without socking and present a give us a reason to believe that whatever problems that caused your block will not be repeated. I personally don't mind in principle to unblock such users without the wait, however they need to present a compelling reason for that. Max Semenik (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And now, he has chosen to sock once again. (In addition to the contribs here, the editor's first edit was to make a sandbox edit that was exactly like what ddd was always doing, but has been since speedy deleted.) Between this and the 4 rejected unblock request, talk page access is revoked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Key of Avalon-flyer.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Key of Avalon-flyer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: your email

Sorry, I'm not prepared to consider a WP:OFFER unblock request so soon after your last socking - 6 months is the standard wait. While I said that it's possible to unblock before that, I also said that it requires exceptional circumstances. Max Semenik (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and you've (Tripple ddd) socked like10-15 times now, and as recently as a week ago. No admin is going to go for this already. Sergecross73 msg me 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, for any other Admin he may email, please let it be known that he's been caught socking as recently as September 7th, 2015. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: email

I've already explained this before you were blocked, but I'll do it one more time. Just because other articles are not doing the same (and if you read the talkpage on Sega, I already explained that they ARE mentioning similar things, so this argument of yours is moot anyway), it doesn't mean we should exclude acceptable information from a good source about Sega doing this. If anything, you providing sources for other companies doing something similar gives me reason to add it to their articles if I so choose, so you've just rendered your own argument even further invalid.

Don't email me further to discuss content. Being able to edit and discuss content on WP is a privilege, and you've lost it by editing disruptively and refusing to take part in discussion (or even acknowledging the arguments people have made against your editing choices, as this email makes it very obvious that you didn't really give a shit about why I objected to this particular edit of yours in the first place).

If you really care about improving the encyclopedia you first need to prove you won't waste other editors' time, stop fucking around and wait six months without socking. After that, you need to make it abundantly clear to an admin that you understand what you did wrong, and that you will start paying very careful attention to discussions and not edit against consensus, especially not when the discussion is still ongoing or when others still have objections with what you're doing (as this was the main reason you first got blocked). If you keep messing around, socking or sending me asinine emails like this attempting to argue content when you lost the right to do so, I'll have Serge revoke email form access on this and every one of your socks. I've tried to be helpful to you from the very beginning, even when other editors were already convinced you were a net negative to the project, but if you start harassing me over email out of sheer inability to drop the bloody stick over your pet article, you're going to find appealing that indef block extremely difficult. ^BLUSTER⌉⌊_BLASTER 12:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

UTRS unblock requests

February 2017

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17535 was submitted on Feb 14, 2017 22:24:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Note to the reviewing admin: This editor has never stopped sockpuppeting since their initial block and has been caught block evading on over 40 occasions. Even as recently as two weeks ago. List of socks below. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Trooj (talk · contribs)
2. 80.121.52.9 (talk · contribs)
3. Opothe3 (talk · contribs)
4. 91.113.40.147 (talk · contribs)
5. Flaffy4 (talk · contribs)
6. Opothe4 (talk · contribs)
7. 213.33.6.128 (talk · contribs)
8. Fromkopf (talk · contribs)
9. 777BK (talk · contribs)
10. UPO22 (talk · contribs)
11. 178.190.242.137 (talk · contribs)
12. 213.33.3.191 (talk · contribs)
13. 213.33.3.17 (talk · contribs)
14. Opo9 (talk · contribs)
15. Polis128 (talk · contribs)
16. ZuYuZuYuZ (talk · contribs)
17. 5CSFRSJ (talk · contribs)
18. 194.166.72.172 (talk · contribs)
19. OpOX1 (talk · contribs)
20. 91.113.101.136 (talk · contribs)
21. Huppallo (talk · contribs)
22. 62.46.150.190 (talk · contribs)
23. 91.114.141.102 (talk · contribs)
24. OPOX2222 (talk · contribs)
25. 213.33.3.180 (talk · contribs)
26. 91.113.98.119 (talk · contribs)
27. UiUNr.8 (talk · contribs)
28. Tr.898 (talk · contribs)
29. 194.118.226.39 (talk · contribs)
30. 194.166.72.88 (talk · contribs)
31. Mr.YUy (talk · contribs)
32. 62.46.145.148 (talk · contribs)
33. 194.118.225.40 (talk · contribs)
34. 194.118.228.9 (talk · contribs)
35. SethNr.78 (talk · contribs)
36. Mr.Kikuchi (talk · contribs)
37. Nettodama (talk · contribs)
38. Mr.2994 (talk · contribs)
39. Iowespawl (talk · contribs)
40. 213.33.0.76 (talk · contribs)
41. Sr.343 (talk · contribs)
42. Zeroshift3000 (talk · contribs)
43. Homney (talk · contribs)

March 2017

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #17700 was submitted on Mar 07, 2017 15:20:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a TL;DR version for whoever reviews this case yet again, this editor has been caught socking/block evading at least 40 times in the last year and a half, (see list in section above) including within the last month, where they got caught socking during an active request for the WP:STANDARDOFFER]. Please factor that into your decision. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18698 was submitted on Jul 10, 2017 23:55:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18741 was submitted on Jul 14, 2017 22:03:03. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop sending me emails

Look, if it wasn't for Ferret letting me know about how dodgy you are, I would have been in deep trouble. So please, stop sending me messages because I'm just going to ignore them at this point. I'm not going to play puppet for you. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the ability for this user to use Wikipedia email. -- ferret (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20398 was submitted on Jan 22, 2018 15:46:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Tripple-ddd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20480 was submitted on Jan 31, 2018 01:45:29. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SegaWow logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SegaWow logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Smilebit.png

Thank you for uploading File:Smilebit.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maimaig01.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Maimaig01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Uga.svg.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Uga.svg.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Noriyuki Shimoda" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noriyuki Shimoda and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#Noriyuki Shimoda until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)