User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 37
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sergecross73. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Move request
Hi! Maybe you know about the upcoming free-to-play Wii U game code-named Project Treasure. Recently, the game's final title Lost Reavers has been announced. I've already done some work on the article, but now I could need your help with moving the page. Thanks, 88.68.179.202 (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Done. I saw that pop up on my Twitter feed today, so I know its the truth. Thanks for fixing up the rest of the article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you and no problem! I guess that's another good reason for creating an account, although it's the first time I've ever had to move an article. 88.68.179.202 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, it's me again (see above)! I feel like the English/European title would be a better fit for the article Girls Mode 3: Kirakira ☆ Code. What do you think about this title, am I wrong in my reasoning on the talk page and do you think the article should be moved? Would really appreciate your opinion on this, as always. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've pinged the page creator so they can tell us their point of view. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll comment there too, but the rule of thumb is typically to use English names when we've got them, so we should probably move it. Also, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to avoid symbols like stars, so there's another reason to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's good to know, especially about the symbols. Should we wait a bit longer so the page creator and/or other users can comment there as well or do you believe our reasoning is strong enough to outright move it anyway? 88.68.129.30 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'm just going to move it. The editor who created the article doesn't seem to be all that active with their editing, which leads me to believe that 1) it could be a while until he responds and 2) his original titling may just have been chalked up to "not knowing any better". Or maybe not, but we can always continue the discussion with him if/when he responds. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright! I noticed that they seem to mostly edit Korean articles, so maybe they just didn't think too much about how the title affects non-Asian/English users. Now I wonder what the most fitting title for this article would be. The complete official title is "Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 2 - Fashion Forward", which could be a bit too long. Maybe it would be better to omit the somewhat unnecessary "Nintendo Presents:" and just call it "New Style Boutique 2: Fashion Forward" and mention the full title on the article instead. WP:CONCISE appears to support doing that as well, but I'll leave that up to you to decide. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I saw that you had moved the page and thus made some changes to the article to reflect the renaming. Please have a look at it and let me know whether I did it correctly, as I wasn't sure how to best mention the full title (or just correct it yourself if you prefer). Unfortunately, I'm not into fashion games at all and have practically no knowledge about the game or the genre, so I won't be able to help much beyond what I added already. I also hope that someone else can provide the game's cover. I only stumbled upon the page, because someone added the Wiki link to the Amiibo article some time ago and wondered, why it had the JP name instead of the EU one. Anyways, thanks for your kind assistance in this case so far. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm basically in the same boat as you, where I'm neither naturally knowledgeable, or very interested, in such a game, so I too leave it in the hands of others, but yeah, your changes are fine, and other's can tweak it themselves if they're not happy with the exact wording. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You're a good editor, I still think you should make yourself an account. :) Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Thank you very much for your kind words, but I'm not sure if I'm ready yet for being a member. I too often make tiny mistakes like typos in my edits which I only discover when it's too late and then have to correct in subsequent edit(s), even leading one user to mistake my corrections for test/unconstructive editing recently. I feel like it'd be better to figure out how to further improve my editing (i.e. avoid mistakes) before "entering the scene" ;) 88.68.129.30 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, its totally up to you. People are usually fine with mistake making if you're humble and open to learning how to do things the right - the type of attitude you already seem to have. But I understand your sentiment too, I did take a similar but different approach myself - in my early days, I used my account, but only worked on super obscure articles, as to stay out of the way and not cause troubles while I was still learning the ropes. That's not all that different than what you're doing. Anyways, feel free to ask for help or explanation on anything, I know there are a lot of Wiki-rules/guidelines/policies/ect out there, and they don't always make sense right away... Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. Thank you very much for your kind words, but I'm not sure if I'm ready yet for being a member. I too often make tiny mistakes like typos in my edits which I only discover when it's too late and then have to correct in subsequent edit(s), even leading one user to mistake my corrections for test/unconstructive editing recently. I feel like it'd be better to figure out how to further improve my editing (i.e. avoid mistakes) before "entering the scene" ;) 88.68.129.30 (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm basically in the same boat as you, where I'm neither naturally knowledgeable, or very interested, in such a game, so I too leave it in the hands of others, but yeah, your changes are fine, and other's can tweak it themselves if they're not happy with the exact wording. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You're a good editor, I still think you should make yourself an account. :) Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I saw that you had moved the page and thus made some changes to the article to reflect the renaming. Please have a look at it and let me know whether I did it correctly, as I wasn't sure how to best mention the full title (or just correct it yourself if you prefer). Unfortunately, I'm not into fashion games at all and have practically no knowledge about the game or the genre, so I won't be able to help much beyond what I added already. I also hope that someone else can provide the game's cover. I only stumbled upon the page, because someone added the Wiki link to the Amiibo article some time ago and wondered, why it had the JP name instead of the EU one. Anyways, thanks for your kind assistance in this case so far. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright! I noticed that they seem to mostly edit Korean articles, so maybe they just didn't think too much about how the title affects non-Asian/English users. Now I wonder what the most fitting title for this article would be. The complete official title is "Nintendo Presents: New Style Boutique 2 - Fashion Forward", which could be a bit too long. Maybe it would be better to omit the somewhat unnecessary "Nintendo Presents:" and just call it "New Style Boutique 2: Fashion Forward" and mention the full title on the article instead. WP:CONCISE appears to support doing that as well, but I'll leave that up to you to decide. 88.68.129.30 (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think I'm just going to move it. The editor who created the article doesn't seem to be all that active with their editing, which leads me to believe that 1) it could be a while until he responds and 2) his original titling may just have been chalked up to "not knowing any better". Or maybe not, but we can always continue the discussion with him if/when he responds. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's good to know, especially about the symbols. Should we wait a bit longer so the page creator and/or other users can comment there as well or do you believe our reasoning is strong enough to outright move it anyway? 88.68.129.30 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll comment there too, but the rule of thumb is typically to use English names when we've got them, so we should probably move it. Also, I'm pretty sure we're supposed to avoid symbols like stars, so there's another reason to change it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance series relisted
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Marvel-Ult-Alliance-2/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d8024156082f http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Marvel-Ult-Alliance/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802415607da — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.103.246 (talk • contribs)
- I have no idea why you're linking me to this... Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Lilandra's appearance on XML2
She is mentioned during an extra mission of PSP version. Why don't you try to play that video game and look carefully. Lilandra's & comic book cover for extra mission appears there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.192.103.246 (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BURDEN. It is not my responsibility to prove a point you're trying to make. I'm not just going to go and buy and play some random game just to confirm/deny a point you're not putting forth any effort of your own to prove. Also, that's only half the problem with the content. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Far Cry
Serge, could you please semi-prot Far Cry? It's not quite vandalism, but there is an IP hopper who is refusing to respect sources and consensus that the new upcoming game is a spin off, rather than part of the main sequence. There's a talk page section about it, and I had previously went to 3RR notice board for the first IP, who devolved into vandalizing user pages. The second IP is currently blocked by Salvidrim for harassing AdrianGamer and Czar's user/talk pages. A third IP showed up just a bit ago. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I totally would have, but it looks like Salv already took care of everything. By all means, ask if you need any further help with it though. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah I thought it would sit but then he went through my contributions and started reverting everything, and I noticed Salv was active ... ;) -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Super Nintendo
Can you give your take on the Super Nintendo release date? Two users claim Nintendo Life makes up dates which is opposite of what it says here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources I think they are upset I found several sources proving I'm right.166.170.59.75 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can look into it some shortly. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, NintendoLife is usable, yes, but so are the other sources they are proposing. Sometimes the reporting of different reliable sources clash, and you need to dig to see which ones are correct. I can try to look into it, but I'm not really sure which is correct, and the exact day probably isn't going to be covered by many sources. Do you have particular reason to believe that the print magazine sources from back in the day were wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
ANI Close
@Sergecross73: - since you chimed in earlier, can you close the ANI I created -> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#The_Banner_-_AFD_Topic_ban - it looks like I'm in the minority in thinking intervention is required, so no point in have that drag on anymore. Thanks -- R45 talk! 21:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Serge has commented, so can't really close it, but I've done so in his stead. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Salvidrim! - it's almost scary how much we're on the same page. My response would have been to say I was involved in respect to the conversation, and ping you to see if you'd look into it and close it. Then, I probably would have closed it with pretty much the same closing sentiment. Amazing. Thank you, best TPS ever! Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ssshhhh, that's exactly what a sock would say ;) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Salvidrim! - it's almost scary how much we're on the same page. My response would have been to say I was involved in respect to the conversation, and ping you to see if you'd look into it and close it. Then, I probably would have closed it with pretty much the same closing sentiment. Amazing. Thank you, best TPS ever! Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I want your opinion on an article
Us at WP:AUTO are debating whether or not the article List of automobiles notable for negative reception should be deleted or kept. Seeing as you are active in maintaining List of video games notable for negative reception, we want your opinion on the matter. Any input from you or anyone else who is active involved in looking after that article would be greatly appreciated! Karrmann (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. I left a comment and will help to try help things out. I bet a number of my (talk page stalker) have or will comment to, as several have helped with the video game list. Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
8th gen
please stop changing my edits which are from sourced websites n websites of the people who make the devices n specs..are you going to give me problems? because if so i can complain about you reverting my edits that are accurate on the 8th generation VG era article...i dont guess n make this up...i very the info from SOURCED sites and by the way if you're not good at calculating numbers which then maybe you shouldnt edit in places where you have no knowledge...so please i'm tryign to be nice STOP REVERTING MY EDITS..i put alot into some of the articles here with as much accurate info as i can and i dont appreciate what you're doing...you keep this up i'll make a complain about you here if possible...i'm warning you...stop reverting my time-consuming effort of researching and evrything for you to just reverted back to simpleton terms...its good to be as specific as possible..i hope we understand each other and you wont keep doing this otherwise i'm a make a complain against you to have you at least suspended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.52.70 (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your edits are introducing many errors into the article. For example, you keep adding "US" to the release date. However, not all dates are from "the US", (like the PS TV) and we typically label things by continent (North America), not country. Also, your "personal calculations" are not usuable per WP:OR, and you need to learn how to properly cite sources - see WP:REFB. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
preferring SIMPLICITY over specificity is very ignorant on your part...the point of being as specific as possible is so others would have the most accurate info on said topic and even though i forget to gather up all the websites and get this info from which is legit, i also use my head...do you really need someone to tell you what 2+2 if you can figure it out yourself at times? i believe god gave me a brain so we should at least make a little effort to USE IT and i sent and posted a few links of the websites i'm getting this from, some are even from the same or announced people who made said device...most would want to get false information on purpose just to bother and confuse other readers or lie to them? why would I dedicate hours of looking up info editing if you're going to criticize my work and just because you can't make the effort to properly use your head and look up the information yourself doesn't mean others are wrong...this is what i don't like about wikipedia...even though every pitches and most of us are pretty much in a way doing all this for FREE and not getting a cent out of it and try to make an effort , in my case doing a lot more than i should and i'm not even getting paid for it and you're whining and complaining abut my methods even though i have posted official articles detailing the specs of some of these devices? what more do you want ? their fingerprints and DNA? ..i'm no damn bad type or troll, i'm not doing this for my health i'm doing this to help other readers like myself have the most accurate up to date info in 1 place instead of having them go look the info just because you guys can't put it there...look it up yourselves and you should be able to find it, if you're that smart and dedicated that is.... you all do things in our own way and even though not all of us are here 24/7 because well most of us got LIVES outside of this when we make an effort to help you get upset or complain, i'm sure others besides me think the same thing about yours and some other people's edits...they're TOO SIMPLE and lack creativity and not specified..i'm sure we have readers who aren't very keen on technology and if you told them if they like prefer a snapdragon 820 over an exynos they wouldn't know what the hell i was talking about..anyone can be informed and do the research and besides the fact you can get a lot of this information and source it, you can also use your BRAIN and do the math if to piece certain things together "2 + X = 7" ...do you really need someone to tell you or announce officially that you need to put a 5 there for you believe it hmmm? answer that wise guy..and by the way if some of you contributed to other articles where others might get information from to put in other articles than maybe you should talk to them...even when i try to put some of the sites i get my information from you think it's wrong (even though a lot of this info is sourced and available to the public lol) you question it? yes everyone can publish and write innacurate info or lie about on purpose....but to judge others just because they have the smarts to not only look up the info and source a few of them (because lets be honest if you sourced every single sentence paragraph then it would take forever to write an article lol) but have the will to actually use your head without having someone tell you answer..do you really need to be told everything? how do you function in a world if you have everyone try to tell you how to think and what to do, last time i checked this was a FREE COUNTRY....you need to worry about people who try to purposely write wrong information or try to troll etc....those are the ones you need to worry about not the ones who are at least TRYING to make an effort that most haven't done to improve an article and by the way not that it matters but some of the stuff I wrote in articles have been used by others (i'm sure as hell you probably have or copied) because up until I wrote it no one else made the effort to do it..up until i done it, it was kept and maybe added into so if some of us are willing to inspire 1 another creatively that's the point...but you and other telling me what to write , how to edit when i try hard to follow the standard you judge and criticize ...that is unacceptable....why do you think wikipedia lets anyone the right to edit..yes we have people who prob work directly from wikipedia but most of us don't get paid for this, the least you could do is appreciate it and give others the credit they deserve when thy're trying to improve an article ..especially not by making things up, most of us who actually care about facts would look it up and at times when needed, figure things out, that's what makes a great editor..are you trying to say that unless someone tells officially that something is indeed accurate or false that you won' believe it hmmm? how about figuring out FLOPS? if there's a formula of how to do it and you see a blank are you just gonna put question marks or you gonna at least make the effort to figure out hmm? especially if theres facts left and right...all someone has to do at times is use their head and piece things together...a lot of the info i put comes from somewhere but also you have to know how to do things and piece them together i mean come on some of the information i get are from within other articles within wiki itself that prob some of you edited to....there's millions of people who contribute to this and other websites like it and we don't get paid for it..why don't you try telling albert einstein or benjamin franklin how to invent...people thought they werent very smart, hell some thought they were stupid and they're some of our greatest minds in human history for their inventions and were criticized just like what you're doing to me and millions of others..we all got ways of doing things in our own way and not always gonna agree on each others methods, you like simpleton articles because you think the average reader is a stupid as a door nail and you think it would scare or bore people off if they see the facts but don't know what they mean, well maybe they should instead get EDUCATED and use their head more instead of acting confused or COMPLAIN about how others who dedicate themselves make the effort to help..i'm not here 24/7 like some who are here, sometimes you can do TOO MUCH of something that you forget and can't tell reality from fiction or reality from work..i don't have that problem and you can't say evrything you wirte is correct..no one is perfect but we try our best to be and you can't shun people away just because they have their ways of doing things, i don't need to be no journalist or literature major for me to figure some things out, that's the beauty of the internet , yes there might be fake and BS lies in some but its also a great source of knowledge for those who invest their time looking up the articles, why do you think people edit and write articles for people to see over the internet for ? lol ....i read books but times evolve and its more convenient when you can look up anything you want online without going to a library..i believe in being as specific and accurate and complete as possible, im not doing this for my health...i rely on wikipedia a lot to look up things and all these articles came from somewhere right and we're allowed to edit and fix mistakes...1 thing is trying to keep the site free from people who want to purposely mess it up another is blocking creativity just because you do things a different way or because you haven't made the same amount of effort to look up the facts and at times figure them out...you can't block other peoples opinions and methods without looking into your own....if i'm doing the best I can in something that i notice others don't because some times an article isn't as fleshed out usually until I do something about it and i know i'm not the only one i'm not saying that but a lot of the info i put has being used or built upon by others thank TO ME, no one else has put information that looked like mine up until i did them and they were kept and of course added into or improved upon based on my way of writing and methods...I inspire people the same way other's inspire me and when you tell me what i can't and cannot do even though i try my best to follow wiki standards even when i source the damn thing in some of the articles you still give me crap? you're only upset because you haven't done it, or made the effort or figured things out...its more like a personal attack on someone just because they did things you haven't thought of doing so first...i highly doubt you would criticize your own work...why? because you think its perfect? maybe some other editors here disagrees with your work, maybe some think you lack of creativity and simpleton ways of things is very empty because it lacks facts and information just because you don't wanna put it there...for god sakes some of these facts came not only from other websites but from within wiki itself lol and there's a chance you might know at least one personally that wrote that article and yet you criticize it even though it was correct and was put in here so its like contradicting facts by others who you know they're good editors but didn't realize it, i think you have a problem wit creativity that's other than your own and just because you haven't though it up to figure things out or look up the facts doesn't mean you have to bully or criticize their work...i wonder if there's websites where one is allowed to freely, without having people like you criticize or block their creativity and work and just let anyone do their own version of things i mean seriously most of us don't get a cent for contributing here and you got the nerve to talk and others like you to block mine and others creative ways of editing just because we have our own ways or want to be more accurate about it? that's BS and you know it, i'm sure having articles with little information or missing information when all you see is a blank squares with mostly missing information one can look up easily, is satisfactory for you but its not lol...for example lets say you write about a computer and you put all the info you can but its missing other facts like name of GPU, clock speed, FLOPS, and its not there but you can figure and look the facts up to complete the article...wth you think i been trying to do? make things up and look up BS articles? lol.. you have issues with people with doing things other than your own..i don't care how you do things..if you want to be a simpleton and write as bare as possible with as less detail and specificity as possible well that's your problem..for me i need more facts and accurate and as much detail information as possible whether others are smart enough to comprehended or not..its better to have more of something than to have less or none of it...don't block other's creativity and way of doing things just because you haven't thought about them yourself or because you're too lazy to look up the facts or because you think simpleton with as less info as possible is good..i'm not trying to please you lol...or myself i'm trying to help everyone including me because i know most won't do it for whatever reason (usually lack of interest or effort to look up the information , they're lazy or just plain dumb) i edit things my way as best to wiki standards as possible.. i mean i had to figure a lot of this editing code stuff myself no one told me how to do these edit things "I FIGURED THEM OUT "MYSELF"...by looking up how people edit and the codes you need to use etc...and i know i still have much to learn but i more than the basics when it comes to editing here..stop telling me what to do and i won't tell you how to edit (or lack thereof)...you don't see me writing you and telling you your or others way of editing articles suck cause they lack facts and specificity do you ? lol no i don't...if you wanna do things half-assed..excuse i mean half-way that's your problem not mine but don't give others criticism just because you or others haven't thought them up or looked them up...god gave me a brain, i'm a use it and i not only can use my head to figure things out i can also look up facts you know..why don't you try telling that to the million of editors who write in websites like cnet other tech friendly websites how you write and see what they tell you lol....trust me way i edit is the way some editors in popular websites like CNET write and get their facts from...i mean we don't just think and make stuff up lol, all this information we put in things comes from somewhere you know lol...numbers where thought up by someone, letters were thought up by someone...the inforamtion i put might not always be sourced with a link but i do look them and at times use my head to figure things out..please stop this or i'll have to find a way to go to your superiors and deal with this or i'll just find another website like this where people aren't told how to write just because they don't do it the same way as others, we're here for the same reason, you do things your way , i do things my way but in the end we're both along with millions of others whose intentions are to improve an article, trying to make a place where we can get everything we want to know about something in just 1 place, the ones who only read wiki articles have no idea of the effort it takes gathering all the information up, its up to use to differ between fact from fiction and yes we all make mistakes but in my case i know most of the things i write and get my info from are pretty close to accurate or they will be...i hope i made myself very clear now...i'm not violating anything or doing nothing wrong...DON'T TELL ME HOW TO EDIT WHEN I'M DOING WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AND JUST BECAUSE i'M DOING THINGS MORE SPECIFIC AND AS ACCURATE AS I CAN THE BEST AS I CAN THAN YOU, I along with millions of others have our ways or similar ways of doing things i'm sure there are other people out there who like to write half-assed articles with little to no information or specificity as yours but i'm sure there are others who like to have everything as specific and complete as possible even when at times they have to and go though the effort of looking up and solving the missing pieces together even though it was not put on the article BUT it was already announced or solved...you guys just didn't put it there or bothered to update the facts..that's where people like come in...to fill in the blanks as best as possible when other are too dumb or lazy do it themselves or believe a simple article with little facts is sufficient...how the hell you gonna write about a device without going into full description of its features as best as possible hmm? for you an article is like this" this is _ _ _ and __ AND ___ " for me i like to know as much about something as possible..sorry but that's just me i like specifics i like to know the tech specs of something because its incredibly useful when knowing "what makes this different than this one" ...a RADEON FURY IS NOT THE SAME AS A RADEON FURY X but if you only put the name but don't go into detail about the features of each most likely people wont know the difference and would most likely buy the wrong thing or say the wrong thing because they haven't gone into detail about the specs of each, even though i get most of my info from SOURCED websites with a little help of intellect that god has gave me..we have brains and most people don't even use 50% of their intellect and though most of us are and can be capable...a lot of us are just to damn lazy or dumb to look up facts or think and puzzle things up for ourselves..that's the problem not my way editing...so please i hope we can make a compromize... you do things your way , i do things mine, last time i checked this isn't a competition or pointing out fingers or saying "mine is better than yours" etc if you think your way of editing is fine ..good for you but don't expect everyone to agree on that...i certainly do not and apparently you don't agree with mine..that ok though i'm not asking you to lol but don't criticize or block someone just because theye doing things differently than others or because what seems to me in our case, someone seems more dedicated and for a lack of a better word, smarter, than you or others..have a nice day ..and yes will take this matters higher with your superiors if i have to71.172.52.70 (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I mentioned to you already, your edits were introducing basic fundamental errors into the article, and you weren't citing your sources, which is the foundation of the entire website. You failed to engage in any constructive, meaningful discussion on these shortcomings, and decided to just keep re-adding it to the article, so now the page has been locked. Please discuss your proposed changes to the 8th gen talk page, and editors can either help you implement it, or inform you why its not appropriate content. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
....would you prefer expressing my frustration in what i don't agree with and try to say it as direct and respectful as possible or would you prefer for me to not say much and be harsh to you and not give care to what you sat? would that be suit you better?i could..but i don't think that's what you want...ramblings you said just because you don't like to be told off doesn't mean its rambling, deal with it like a MAN and take criticism because not everyone does things the same way...so for you or anyone complaining about speaking one's mind i could care less tbh but you're abusing your power and you are the reason or one of the reasons you make it unpleasant for some to edit in wikipedia...even when i try to to make good edits and a lot more thorough and informative you have a complaint about it.. i'm doing exactly the same thing you are doing pal, are not any more or lesser than me....don't talk the talk if you can't take it when people speak their mind about things you don't want to hear cause that right there is childish, you expect people to bow to you and not respond? lol good luck with that you're not getting that out of me...i mean i'm willing to compromise and discuss things but you are putting half-assed edits..i'm filling them out an expanding and putting sources on them i might add and you or others with your limited mentality revert an article to 1 with very little information ..how are empty spaces better than filled ones? that makes absolutely no sense...i even provide some sources from where i get my stuff from and still complain n harass?...you prob didn't even notice some of the edits there you see in even your edits and others were done by ME lol, you just built upon it and added your own, i'm not saying you nor others taking credit for others work and research (i hope not that's just unprofessional and messed up) but you got something of a personal motive that you're not admitting to, if i'm doing the edits as best as i can and doing it the same way as you are and tryign to provide sources...what s the problem then? the stuff i get my info from are from credited 1st or 3rd party websites lol..what more do you need? the signatures of the editors of the other websites where i get my info from? come on now haha..why don't you be a little more honest and say what really is your problem with me instead of making escuses for it and when people confront you about it or want to speak their mind you back out...oh yeah that's very mature pal just because i don't believe in the same ideals as you ...i mean how can an admin of such "REPUTATION" be so naive..i don't get it..you don't like others to express their disapproval or speak their mind about how to improve an article i mean this is what U r doing "4 + X = 5"..that's ok to you right ..missing information that you won't even bother to look up fully and this isn't a grammar class people make typos all the time big deal deal with it..this isn't a regular article its a talk page. i got my say as much as you do regardless of how long you have being editing here or your position here etc, i have a say as much as you do...if you can't take criticism of your poorly edited works than maybe you shouldn't be editing here in the first place..you have no seniority or control over me whatsoever..no one does as i don't have over you ...all i'm asking is for me do do things right and i'am i give u sources , i flesh out the articles n fill in the blanks ..what more do you want guy?...don't make arrogant excuses about my typos or so called ramblings just because you can't take being told in your face criticism in your work...the point is i COMPLETE the articles..you and others with your mentality don't finish it or bother to do a more thorough look..so don't make excuses for your wrong doings ..so you can't take criticism, you don't like other people's edits that re more complete and informative than yours unless you are the 1 editing them, you make excuses for people speaking their mind when they tell you things in your face that are mostly true but you aren't mature enough to own up to it, you make it personal...so if you or anyone who thinks like you don't think about it or made the effort than its BAD right? lol...who you think you are? god ? lol ....i try to be respectful and i want to be able to edit freely in my own way even though my versions are usually more complete , informative and thorough, i don't make up facts i don't troll or do things with bad intentions here..especially here because i rely in wikipedia myself when i want to look up something just because you haven't thought it up or made the effort to be more thorough doesn't mean you or your kind with your mindset have to abuse their authority here because they weren't creative enough to come up wit h it themselves..like i said go ahead and make excuses about misspellings and ramblings because you hide under that to mask your own faults wish it was you who done it and thought it up so what do you do? you make excuses because you can't accept others doing a better job at editing that you do...tell me if I'm wrong..pfftt not that you'll be man enough to admit to and others with your limited and immature mindset would act the same as well i bet..don't take it out on others who are more dedicated, and thorough and smarted than you are ..that is not only childish...its just pathetic...we're suppose to be working together not against 1 another, so go right ahead , or your kind make excuses for your actions and use little pointless flaws like a simple typo or misspelling, to use it as an excuse because you can't take some doing things better than you..admit to it instead of making excuses for it..i make my edits thorough and informative (not half-assed or missing like others i've seen )and i try to provide sources for them...so what exactly is the problem here that SUPPOSEDLY i'm breaking wiki standards lol...=i see many missing half-assed articles here all the time and i don't see them being improved on and when thy are i bet you don't give credit to the one who tired to improve it, you would probably take the credit for yourself of others peoples efforts..its common sense..if an article is missing information , you fill it up and look for it, that's exactly what i did..you have a bunch of missing information and blank boxes in your versions and you mean to tell me that's acceptable? hahahaha give me a break..we both know who is the one MAKING THE EFFORT HERE its obvious, just at least be man enough to admit your mistakes and wrongs and envying people and using your authority here on others who done a better job just because you haven't thought of it or made the extra effort doesn't mean you have to criticize their own work...you wanna do half -assed articles that's fine by me they are your edits anyway not mine i could care less but when i'm doing my edits i like them to be complete and thorough as possible that's the difference between you and me..i'm committed and take this seriously and i never do edits with bad intentions or put fake info...EVER ..sadly there are those who are actually DISRUPTIVE...i'm not those stop using the wrong terminology on others who are jsut more dedicated and smarter than some...those aren't disruptive...its more like "i'don't like them doing a better job than I do" excuse ....how would you like it if i judged you based on your character and personality or even appearance? you wouldn't like it would you? i know what i'm doing is right and i at least i'm not alone on that because others feel the same way and others even you prob without noticing it have done edits on articles that were built upon some of the things i improved on them ..but that's the point for us to help 1 another and influence each other...that's what suppose to be the point of wikipedia...ik my edits helped many people and besides you whether you admitted or not, have built upon my efforts to make their edits better in at least using my methods...you got your way of editing i got mine but if your half assed edits are ok with wiki standards than mine should pass with flying colors..my contributions to this site speak for themselves..i never do a half-assed job in my edits i put a lot of effort and time into them..so next time don't compare me to those whose intentions is to put fake info, or mess up edits on purpose..THATS DISRUPTIVE EDITING, i don't and would never do that, i respect this site and what it represents..its an open editing website for a reason you know...you aren't the only making contributions here, some do it better than others, you just have to come to terms with that and that goes for others who think like you and make excuses because they didn't make the effort to go further or didn't come up with it first...so go ahead hide your lack of admitting you are wrong under excuses or abusing your authority on people who can write edits better than you..and exactly what so-called FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS AM I DOING ? besides making an article better , with sources i might add..be specific...fundamental errors oh please..if you are referring to typos that's meaningless typos can easily be corrected or any other grammar error..that's the last thing to worry about and can be fixed by me or others later, i focus first and foremost on retrieving facts and filling out gaps..my grammar and spelling is the last thing on my mind this is an encyclopedia not hooked on phonics...grammar errors can be fixed in the end or later by other less experienced editors...i focus on retrieving facts and being thorough and specific as possible and i don't need to make up information, i usually can find it..its not very hard to find the info you need...i'm just more resourceful and dedicated than you that's all 71.172.52.70 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, everyone "edits differently", but some things need to be constant among all editors. That's following WP:V, which means providing content directly stated in reliable sources without any original research. If you can do that, then prove it on the article's talk page. If you give me a few good examples of figures that need to be changed, and sources that support them, and show an understanding of how to properly add a source to an article (WP:REFB), I'll unlock the article. If you don't, the article will stay locked. It doesn't matter that it's a "free country" or that you're a volunteer (we all are), you still need to follow rules and procedures.
- In regards to errors you've repeatedly reintroduced into the article, look at this edit. You put "US" in the release date column, but this is incorrect because not all release dates were for the US (that is the Japanese release date for the PlayStation TV), and in general, on Wikipedia, release dates are generally tracked as "North America", not "US". You also kept on adding informal terms like "1st gen", on to the chart, when you should be writing it out like "First Generation", (if it needs to be stated at all). Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism pt 7
Extended content
|
|---|
That guy who changes the developers/publishers incorrectly is back under 90.222.19.76. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Please archive, bot. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism pt 8
Extended content
|
|---|
|
New alerts go here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
More: 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00:74CC:6A3D:5C47:A61F (talk · contribs), 2A02:C7D:561D:1D00:30B5:973D:A8BA:887A (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Please archive, bot. Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Test
Will this archive correct? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)