User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I didn't knew I was doing it on purpose. Let me know what to undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserboyM2009 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the errors. I also wanted to say that Hyrule Warriors: Age Of Calamity sold 4 million units worldwide, so I have to update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserboyM2009 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding an edit

Hey! So, just in case user Ss112 happens to read this, please do not reply, I'm her to seek out Serge's help alright. Serge, I don't understand, you see I made an edit to this article A Shape of Light, now before I added the album's full title in stylized form in parenthesis which user Ss112 removed, now I added it as [stylized name] simply known as "A Shape of Light" which also he removed. I don't understand, where are we supposed to mention it then? He says, it's not significant and stop this [Shape A] and [Shape B] versions crap. We do not get to decide what's significant or not, and user Ss112 is just copying and pasting the full title album from Apple Music without even confirming its authenticity, the full title name they added is wrong, and stylization too put aside, the name's still wrong. It's not the name officially published. If you check with the vinyl or the official website the full title is "a silent voice the movie" original sound track: a shape of light [Shape A]. They told me they'd report me if I made the same edit again, so I will not unless I gain consensus, please help with the topic. thank you! HimuTheEditor (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me check it out. I'm not familiar with the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, take your time. I'll be waiting. Thank you HimuTheEditor (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, it's a bit difficult to comment on this exactly, as it seems to be an abnormal case, on a subject I'm not particularly familiar with, but here's some thoughts on it:

1. Personally, I am of the mindset that pointing out very basic stylizations, like titles being in all uppercase and lower case, are unnecessary, because pointing it out serves no purpose. Why point out that a song that would usually be "Help Me" is called "help me"? It's 100% recognizable with anyone with basic reading capability. And there's generally no difference in meaning. There's no difference in meaning in "Help Me" or "help me". I don't see the point in pointing it out. That said, I believe this is more of a "philosophy" than an established rule or anything. If it's a rule, it's not well enforced.
2. In the video game subject area (the other content area I work in besides music) often uses EFN footnotes to simplify the look of outlining full/alternate/lengthy subtitles without bogging down the opening sentences. See something like how it's handled at something like Dragon Quest XI, which actually has a pretty ridiculously long subtitle. If you click on the tiny "c" at the end of the initial "Dragon Quest", you can see it's full Japanese name. Perhaps something like this could be a compromise here?
3. If the vinyl version has a separate name with the "Shape B" or whatever, it seems like that could be worth mentioning in some capacity. But again, merely an opinion. Again, I look to video game articles for an example. The game Sonic Generations had two different versions, and in Japan, each version had its own subtitle. Rather than big down the intro with listing them all off, they were listed as an EFN footnote. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, what you say is correct. But you see Ss112 told me it's not like people won't recognize it if it's named "A Shape of Light" and not "a shape of light". Okay that's fine. But they themselves added full title in parenthesis. The title they added is wrong, they've added A Shape of Light: A Silent Voice The Movie Original Soundtrack and instead it is "a silent voice the movie" original sound track: a shape of light [Shape A]. They do not even bother checking it with any official source or CD or anything. Clearly, Wikipedia's Manual of Style doesn't state it anywhere to write stylized name like this and that. It says to avoid all ALL CAPS or all lowercase but that's not the case here, it's just about mentioning it in parenthesis. Now, it's futile arguing like name this or that, the point is, on CD, on the official website it is called "a silent voice the movie" original sound track: a shape of light [Shape A] and that's it. Isn't me adding that justified? Clearly, they do not even wanna discuss it or compromise or reach a point, they are just sticking with what seems right to them. HimuTheEditor (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is kind of what I was getting at though - some of this stuff is more of a content dispute over what it's actually named. It's not necessarily about policy or anything. And as someone who has never heard of this subject until you both started talking about it, I'm not particularly qualified to comment on that. You both ought to be hashing out arguments on the article talk page or at a related WP:WIKIPROJECT about that, rather than coming to me to intervene. My stance is that standard English language capitalization should be used. As far as which title is the WP:COMMONNAME, I have no idea. Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay but still thank you so muchh for even looking into the topic and replying me even though you did not know of the topic, so sweet of you. I'll start the discussion on the talk page and add the edit back only if I gain consensus and not undo any edits. Thank you for your help! Have a good day & stay safe! and sorry if I bothered you. HimuTheEditor (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sent a final warning to editor

I just don't know how much longer editors are expected to tolerate others making the same edit and finding new ways to argue about while simultaneously restoring something they've had explained to them already multiple times. Himu is the sort of case WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT was made for. They are again making this same edit to Chaos and the Calm after several months of leaving the article alone. This edit in one form or another was reverted several times months ago. It's always one thing or another with them. It's incredibly tiring to see the same person being fixated on the same articles just when you think it was finally clear. I don't necessarily mind if you don't reply to this because I see Himu is already taking up your time with something you're not particularly familiar with above, but just to let you know I've given them a final warning because I think I'm really at my limit of patience here. Ss112 12:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The disupute we'd in the past we over track listing and headline et cetera. This time I was just confused with the title. I would not make that edit again and also you make your statement sound like I keep reverting your edits. Alright buddy, I've had enough. Let's see now. I won't give you a chance ever to undo my edits as they will never be wrong again. Never again. HimuTheEditor (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Buddy", I'm pretty sure I've said I'm done speaking to you. You asked me above to not comment in your thread on Serge's talk page, and I've previously asked you to stop because I don't come here to talk to you. So do me the same courtesy and leave me alone when I talk here. Thank you. Ss112 16:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Serge, I just saw your comment above. I think you're misunderstanding me here because you're annoyed about the constant talk page notifications. I have not come here for you to sort out "content disputes" between HimuTheEditor and I. This notice is not about a content dispute, it's about Himu making the same edit to an article again. Himu has been the one coming here each time I've reverted them and expecting you to know what they're on about. You can see above I replied to Himu and said they shouldn't come here every time I revert them and leave a notice on their talk page. I know you are not interested in nor informed about the topics at hand, and nor am I particularly (in regards to the article Himu is talking about above, I don't even particularly care about the article because I'm not much of an anime fan)—I have reverted Himu where I've noticed them making the same edits, asked them to stop, and now started this thread to say I've given them a final warning because I'm done explaining and being patient. That's all I'm asking—an acknowledgement that you may take action if it continues, as I believe at this point Himu making the same edits to the same articles that have already been reverted is basic disruption. Ss112 16:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not annoyance or irritation, I'm just swamped in real life and it's hard to keep up and understand these scenarios. It's easy for me to pop in and do a simple vandalism revert here and there throughout the day, but right now I'm so busy it's harder to commit consecutive minutes to stuff. Just a temporary thing. Anyways I'll try to look it over later. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I tried asking my doubts on talk page of Ss112 but he just undid them and seems not interested in wanting to answer. So, anyway I would not take any of your time, as since this conversation started I have not undone any of your edits on A Shape of Light, so I'll just let the article let be and won't undo your edits and will ask others my doubts, there's nothing to argue about. That is all! HimuTheEditor (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I asked you to stop posting on my talk page and to stop commenting in my threads here. You've just done it again. Do you not understand or just not care? You asked me to not comment in the thread you started above and I showed you that courtesy, so do me the same. If I have something to say to you, HimuTheEditor, I will not come to Serge's talk page to do it. I will post on your talk page. Regardless of what Serge says, I feel particularly you and even me are annoying him. Stop attempting to minimise the disruption and annoyance you have caused me and Serge and whomever else to just this one anime soundtrack article. It's not just this article, it's also the James Bay album as well as a number of articles you seem fixated on months later and keep returning to edit for some inconsequential silly little reason. For the final time: Please stop bothering me when I comment here (even if it's about your edits) and on my talk page. I have wasted too much time trying to educate you on the Manual of Style and template guidelines that you ended up misinterpreting anyway that I am done trying. Thank you. Sorry if this sounds callous, Serge, but I am sorry for seemingly introducing this editor to your talk page. Ss112 09:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Slipknot

Hello.

I think there is a midunderstanding about our recent reverts. It's my fault if I tripped you up, because of my poorly worded edit summaries.

And editor first made the unsourced claim that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Are_Not_Your_Kind&diff=1064556405&oldid=1063766530 Michael Pfaff performed on the album. I reverted the change and gave a rational that wasn't entirely true. Michael Pfaff was Chris Fehn's replacement, but I contend Michael Pfaff joined the band after the recording of the album.

Your reverts are reinstating the claim that Michael Pfaff (not Fehn) performed on the album. So do you have a source that states Michael Pfaff performed on it?

...and I see now you have self-reverted. Terribly sorry for all the confusion. (I have more empty beer bottles in front of me than facts at the moment), but I can tell you there probably no source that confirms Pfaff is on the album since his own identity as "New Guy" is not yet completely confirmed.

Again sorry for the confusion I've caused. --DB1729 (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, busy Saturday over here and long story short, I misread things. Sorry about that. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Very kind of you, but my fault. I didn't even realize you were an admin until this morning. Ughh, my above post is so awkward! Actually a bit surprised it wasn't worse, given my state.

Fwiw, I have vowed to not drink and edit again.:-) DB1729 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No really, don't worry about it. I jumped in a bit too aggressively. I watch over the page because there's constantly disputes and misguided edits related to band membership and music genre. I was too quick to assume it was yet another one of those types of things. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank You

You having blocked Morse Library is a great service to us all. He continuedly altered quotes and added unsubstantiated claims to many Chris Brown articles and made our job as editors a living hell. Thank you so much. Aardwolf68 (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Morce Library

Hi Serge. Sorry if you're busy—I haven't really had much time to look into either and I didn't realise until today there was a first message about it as when I come onto Wikipedia I sometimes go straight to my talk page so didn't get the notification—but two editors in the past couple of days have somehow found the thread on Morce Library on my talk page and decided to notify me that he's back to the same behaviour after being unblocked. What is indisputable from his edits is that he's engaged in an edit war over various Chris Brown album articles, which is definitely not a good look after his block regardless of whom the other editor might be. Ss112 14:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. It's true I'm busy in real life, but I still want people to come to me for things. I just request a little more patience in response time. (Just generally speaking, but referring to you in particular.) I'll look into this in a bit. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that Bink found him inaccurately direct quoting sources three times already is enough to warrant a block in itself, considering that was a problem in the past. The other stuff isn't great either. Blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I don't know the gist of what is going on, but I think Indigo (Chris Brown album) needs to be protected. Some editor called Charlation (talk · contribs) went around reverting Morce Library's edits and accused them of now using an IP address to evade their block as well as being a sockpuppet of Chris Brown-loving sockpuppeteer Giubbotto non ortodosso. Widr then appears to have blocked Charlation for being a sock, and the IP editor they accused (using the 109.52.xxx.xxx range, who has already been reverted twice for messing with the genres on the article) reverted Charlation and said they were a sock of MariaJaydHicky. I don't know who decided Morce Library was a sock of GNO, but it's possible. Whatever the case the article's edit history is a whole mess. Ss112 13:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed, not 100% what's going on there, but there's enough reverting to warrant page protection no matter who everyone involved is. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely socks involved here, including Morce Library being one, but it's probably not worth digging into *which* master. -- ferret (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Machine gin Kelly

Hi mr. serge. How do i need to be more careful with my wording? Sources not only say that it was his highest debuting album, but also that it's his only album that went platinum. That makes it his most sold and highest charting album. And that overall means literally that it's his most "commercially successful" album. I can't see how my statement was not supported by these stuff--Diana7800 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Commercially successful is a subjective standard. It can mean a lot of things, such as Hoyt personal goals, or being the most profitable. Please just WP:STICKTOSOURCE and say exactly what happened - that it was his first number one and first platinum album. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me sir!!!! 😁😁--Diana7800 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

about the homebrew channel

Why is it on a Redirect page? it was fine before it was on redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about. It looks I redirected Homebrew Channel a ways back last May. Are you referring to that? Even if you are, I'm not sure I understand the question. Sergecross73 msg me 18:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Projected

I'm not really interested in continuing the training of the editor who is adding WP:EASTEREGGs to and removing content from the lead of Projected. Any chance you have a few cycles to help? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose the one-week block will be helpful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sensing some CIR issues, but I wanted to give him a chance to discuss concerns on the talk page, so it's just a partial block. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello. User:Aardwolf68 has been warned 2 times on January 15 (1 and 2) for vandalizing by using misleading edit summaries, afterwards he has been caught from then several other times, by you and others, having the same disruptive behavior. His other unchecked reverts are massive vandalisms as well, for example; inexplicably removing wikilinks and updates of this album being certified triple platinum on the lead section, adding completely unsourced reviews, removing lots of references and messing Italics, removing some other valid edits on the lead. Please, somebody gotta stop his disruption--109.52.244.215 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Left a talk page comment about it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Protect Bite Me (song)

Hello, please protect Bite Me (song), the id 120.29.70.19 always add Alternative Airplay chart, but according to WP:Charts, if a song has charted on Hot Rock & Alternative Songs, it can't add Hot Alternative chart. I don't know what's wrong with the id? Besides, Brightside (The Lumineers song) also have the same situation, please help me solve it, thanks!. Tim96144 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I protected "Bite Me" because there's a history of poor IP edits, but not Brightside, as it has no IP disruption in its page history. Unfortunately, the problem is simply that most editors don't know about the CHARTS guidance, and it's not particularly intuitive, so unfortunately there's just going to be passerby editors who add these charts thinking they're helping. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: just two hours ago before the protection, the IP added again, the IP area may be destructive editing continuously, so I think should be block the IPs 120.29 area, it's better. I hope the IPs don't make trouble after finish the protection, or it may violate The three-revert rule. Tim96144 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

That is odd. My response to a concern has been removed and all trace of it wiped from the Edit history.Daltonsatom (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

You didn't reply on your own talk page. You replied at User talk:Pbrks. -- ferret (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the error, but your comment on the Intellivision Amcio talk page ended in "Sergecross73 msg me" and led to "Hello, I'm Serge, and I'm an Admin here on the English Wikipedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if there's anything you'd like to discuss with me." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to help but it's not quite clear what you're talking about here? Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. You did most of the recent editing on the Intellivision Amico page, but Pbrks made the one contribution of sending me a conflict of interest warning, which I responded to at his talk page and I confused you with that person because you did all the editing and they just sent the warning. TL:DR - I have absolutely no conflict of interest or ties to the company's success.Daltonsatom (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. Well, good to hear you say you don't have a COI, but either way, the article is in terrible shape and needs intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's like the fourth time I've said I have no COI, but it's that Reddit groups go-to accusation when I disagree with their citations.Daltonsatom (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Company employees making claims on Intellivision Amico article

The Intellivision Amico article seems to be under surveillance by fans and known employees of the company. Specifically, user Guidoman is obviously Guido Henkel who self-identifies as "Principal Software Engineer at Intellivision." This appears to contravene Wikipedia policies and practices regarding self-promotion. I know you are already aware of the possibility of puppets on this page, but this company seems particularly prone to it, as the community has already had to remind at least one other user of this rule. Spyrus (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I too had suspicions they were a sockpuppet due to other clues, but your observations are even more clear cut. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User that won't stop replacing images using unofficial sources

Hi Serge. This is the like the third or so time I've explained to IAmAnIndividual on their talk page about images. First I said they should not be seeking to replace cover artworks that don't have something wrong with them, as there is a whole encyclopedia they could be focused on contributing to, including a whole WikiProject that has listed every album article that does not have a cover on it they could help out on. They ignored this advice. They appear to have slowed down their replacement of images, but are now using unofficial sources/potential edits by random Internet users of images as the sources for their images, like Fandom.com, Last.fm and then simply citing an artist's SoundCloud account as the source for an image without a Parental Advisory sticker even though it appears they've just edited out the sticker themselves because there is no such image at the website. I've explained why this is wrong to do but I don't see this stopping as it's the majority of their edits and reason for being here. Bizarrely, they have a whole list on their user page dedicated to listing which articles they've replaced/uploaded the cover art for, as if this is some kind of achievement or major contribution to the article. Would you be able to have a word to them? I'm sure if you look at any of their recent uploads, you'll be able to see the dubious sources they've been using. Ss112 07:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Starting with a warning to engage in discussion and not ignore concerns. I'll escalate if they refuse. Keep me posted. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sikonmina

Hi, are you still supporting this editor? He has decided Sputnik Music is unreliable on the back of one comment at RSN and is redirecting album articles that rely both on it and Allmusic so he can redrect at a fast rate. The speed of his redirects have been questioned by another admin on his talkpage. Also at AFD he has obviously not followed WP:BEFORE as he has speedy closed about five Afds in quick succession because sources have been easily found, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't support the hasty removal of SM, and left a comment about it at RSN. I was not aware of the AFDs. Can you link me to some? Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, he speedy closed these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loudblast (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavenly (French band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Rite (band), and withdrew nomination on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blink of an Eye (Enchant album), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvan (band). The ones he closed himself left no information of the AfD on the article talkpages, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please also see the user's talk page on the question of 19 speedy redirects in 1 hour. The same pattern of not checking sources extends to that, only that speedy redirections are less obvious and harder to keep track of, since they doen't show up at a project page like WP:AFD. The sheer volume of it all, also makes it hard for other editors who actually check for sources, to keep up with it. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The code [for example: the date parameter] for the afd talk page notices is hard for me to understand so I didn't add it in. Regards. Sikonmina (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and some of the articles currently do not have the talk page notification. If someone can post the notification properly the first time, that would be appreciated. Sikonmina (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Atlantic306 and Geschichte: Sikomina is on their final warning for this kind of stuff. Please report any further disruption you may observe, and I'll see if further action is necessary. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sikonmina is currently engaged in a discussion on Talk:Invisible Circles for repetitive disruptive editing. To sum up his way of thinking, he wrote that "Maybe most articles about music should lose most of their content.". I find it very unrespectful of the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and of the work of other editors. We have admins and discussion panels to settle disputes and we don't need editors acting as judge, jury and executioners of contents. Lewismaster (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Lewismaster. He's currently on a final warning from two separate Admin now, (I'm one of them) in relation to virtually all the types of disruptive editing he's been accused of, so I imagine either he'll stop if his own accord, or be blocked. If you see him being disruptive any further, let me know and I'll look into it further. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear at this point that collaborative editing is not in the user's interest. On the other hand, the user's goal is to enforce a certain interpretation of the rules. The main problems are that the removals are so rapid other users can't keep track, and the unilateral behaviour and tone in discussions. Geschichte (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. He's at a final warning from 2 separate admin now, and I think he realizes it, as he's stopped all forms a of his disruptive editing at the moment. That said, it is becoming apparent that that's the only thing he's here to do, as he really hasn't done anything other than badger editors on talk pages for the last couple days. I assure you he's on the thinnest of ice. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen two people essentially call out that action is needed today, but I find myself obligated to note than Sikonmina has not removed any further sources in 3 days now since being warned. Further action is going to require him violating those warnings. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Explain

What was the point of posting this? Sikonmina (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've responded there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It seemed like WP:HARRASSMENT. Sikonmina (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats ridiculous. It was a civil discussion on policy interpretation. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well ive just found WP:BLANKING. If I remove your or anyone elses' comment please keep that in mind. Sikonmina (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're free to blank your own talk page, but it certainly doesn't make the problems just disappear or something. Sergecross73 msg me 22:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What sort of problems are they? You are admin. Please act with WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do people quote WP:CIVIL all day at admins who are being perfectly civil? Informing you of an issue is not incivil. -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:REFACTORING a my talk page and then complaining about it is not WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did he refactor anyone's comments on your talk page? I've reviewed every edit on your talk page by Sergecross and every last one is a new comment by him. Not once has he edited or refactored anyone. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we can add CIVIL and REFACTOR to the long list of things you're not citing correctly. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I refactored my talk and then you complained about it, so no, I didn't cite CIVIL incorrectly. Sikonmina (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about my complaint that you randomly deleted my response while keeping the rest of the conversation intact, altering its overall message. Nor have you explained your baseless accusation about me refactoring any conversations on your talk page when I objectively haven't. Not that it matters. Stop wasting my time with these games where you unsuccessful try to take the things I warn you about and turn them on me. It's not working. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"It appears you've stopped engaging in constructive discussion, considering you've WP:REFACTORed my comments to you ...": jumping to conclusions isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about that exchange. Is there a reason you're wasting your time with these games instead of engaging in a meaningful centralized discussion with the 5+ editors who oppose your rapid-fire source removing? Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Like i said, jumping to conclusions isn't WP:CIVIL. Sikonmina (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be struggling with the very basics of Wikipedia right now, so I'm not particularly interested in your flawed interpretation of CIVIL. Sergecross73 msg me 03:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How ridiculous. Bye! Sikonmina (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read your own talk page. I'm talking about the countless people who oppose of the way you carelessly and too quickly remove content from Wikipedia. Blank all you want, if you disruptively edit, you will be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Persistent link/copyvio spammer

I'm contacting you because I noticed that you previously blocked Yoga Widya 1994 for spamming links from Anime News Network indiscriminately into articles. I've notified them in the past about copying/pasting copyrighted stuff as well (see their talk page). Honestly I had forgotten about that user, but I just saw that someone added a random Indonesian site reference to the intro of a featured article (Audie Murphy), and a glance at their contributions list showed that it's the same person up to the same old thing, indiscriminately adding links from questionable sites (lately dramabeans.com, tirto.id), and copy/pasting Google Translated sentences without attribution into articles. Don't know if it's a competence issue or willful spamming, but maybe we can agree that it's time for them to stop? Thanks for taking a look. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet account / request for page protection

Hi Serge. Earlier I reported Britneyspears782 (talk · contribs) for vandalism and genre warring and they were blocked. It appears they re-registered almost immediately and returned to Night Call (album) with Cookiefullofpoo3 and added one of the unsourced genres they were arguing over earlier. I've reported their username as a lame attempt to be crass at WP:UAA but was hoping you could protect the page so these obvious new/sock accounts can't genre war. Thanks. Ss112 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked as a sockpuppet. That's a checkuser view though I didn't tag it as such as it's a possilikely. There's possibly some more sockpuppetry from this user, if you continue to see similar accounts pop up I'd suggest an SPI. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Australian chart position vandal

Hey Serge. Would you be able to block 1.145.159.39 (talk · contribs)? This is clear block evasion by 124.149.226.118 (talk · contribs), which was blocked by ToBeFree on January 22—just see the same edit summaries. This user has been around for the last couple of years on various IP addresses removing valid Australian chart positions from discographies with the usual edit summary "[song title] failed to/2 top the charts in Australia" despite this making no sense, as the chart positions they're removing are not number ones and are usually sourced. Last month, they also used 14.2.39.60 (talk · contribs) but this range hasn't been used in over two weeks. Ss112 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

How bizarre. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by BlaccCrab

2601:42:900:BEF0:7140:2EEA:DFB9:2D7B (talk · contribs) 47.18.178.114 (talk · contribs)

It appears that BlaccCrab is once again using different accounts. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It certainly does sound like BlaccCrab, but crabby boy's IPs usually geolocated to Maryland. Unless he's managed to learn how to IP hop now, which would not surprise me as a new tactic considering he's hopelessly addicted to editing this website. Ss112 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to tell, but I've protected CLB. Whether it's him or not, a lot of the disruptive edits are centralized there. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You should protect Knife Talk as well, the editor is restoring edits there [1] [2]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)