User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

"fell back into his disruptive editing."I mean no harm,but what's that about,Why would I want to do that,be side posting on discussions I have done a pretty damn good job,it Salv's page,you let him decide if I "fell back into his disruptive editing.",no? You never thought I'd change,didn't you,not everything is as it seems Serge,I never did anything to you or this place.

Your causing trouble,Oh and I don't always follow you around,check my edits again dude,I only follow you only in gaming.74.178.177.48 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The warnings on your current talk page are evidence enough of you being disruptive, and he fact that you participated in a "Gangdam Style" AFD shortly after i did, is evidence enough that you keep hounding me through my contribution list. You are one of the least subtle people I've ever come across, you're not fooling anyone. One more warning, or one more stupid comment that you leave on a page you find from my contribution list, and we're going to ANI. You've been warned. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I only followed you in Oh and I don't always because It happens to be a subject I know,I am done.98.71.62.112 (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Also, please keep up the good work as an administrator and at WP:VG. All the best for the new year, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this up, I was going to do the same thing pretty soon. Thanks for providing an outside view. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please, take a look to [1], likes a bot without permission, Regards Esteban (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'd like to try to help, but I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking for, or what you'd like me to do. Let me know and I can try to look into it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I've read the talk page and I like to work on it soon, since I'm looking for an article to work on. I can't do it now due to Happy New Year coming five days later, and everyone deserves a break. Anyway, I'm thinking February is a good time to work on it. If you like to help, then I'm glad I've got a chance to message you. For now, I would've say Merry Christmas but it's over already so, bye for now. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Listen. I want to retire as an editor. It is getting too stressful for me to continue, as I also find no point in it. Do you happen to know how to? I can't seem to find how to do it. By the way: I guess you in particular are happy now. Goodbye. -Mumbai0618 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbai0618 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you really just stop editing. Some people put some sort of template message on their talk page to notify people that they are retired, but it's not like you in particular were ever really were around that much to begin with, so it's not like you really need to notify anyone in particular that you're done. Sergecross73 msg me 05:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ouya edit, I think Reception fits better than Criticism :) Oct13 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Sergecross73! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 23:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've been working on Little Inferno almost entirely from the ground up, and I was wondering if you could assist with any prose or content issues in the article thus far. The Development and Reception sections are still a work in progress (more sources needed). Would you mind giving me any input for improving the article, particularly the Gameplay section? Thanks! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'll take a look at it tomorrow. I'll need to read up on it some - most video game articles I work on are games I've played, or aspire to play, and I'm not especially familiar with this one, but it's a Wii U title that has Off TV Play, so I am intrigued. Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I must question you as to why you insist on removing information from Movie Freaks 365, especially considering that it holds just as much credentials as DVD Talk, a source which, for some reason, stays on the page but not the former. On that same note, Games Radar may be a professional website, but the article provided from said website is not professionally written. The article says that it was explained in the games how Bunnie Rabbot got her roboticized limbs by saying this: "general game history says she had to have those limbs removed and then surgically added" when in actuality it was never explained in any Sonic game how Bunnie got her limbs roboticized because she never appeared in any Sonic game aside from cameo appearances in Sonic Spinball and Sonic Mega Collection. Neither of those two games explain how her limbs were roboticized unless you count the in-game digital comic book "Sonic Firsts" in Sonic Mega Collection, but that only counts as being explained in the comics, not the games. The robotization of Bunnie's limbs is the only part he actually goes into some detail about, the rest is just a very brief generalization of the cartoon in a negative tone. The article itself is not a review and the entirety of the show isn't even a moment as the title implies. I also find it ridiculous how you believe that IMDb is an unreliable source when it has in been in service since 1990 and it is "one of the most popular online entertainment destinations, with over 100 million unique users each month and a solid and rapidly growing mobile presence."^[1] The reason why I'm writing this is because I'm concerned with the Reception section of Sonic the Hedgehog - The Animated Series being filled with nothing but negative reviews, not a single positive review is within the Reception section, contradictory to the fact that most of the Sonic fanbase considers Sonic the Hedgehog - The Animated Series to be the best Sonic cartoon, yet Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic Underground both have positive reviews in their Reception sections. Austin311 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe this cartoon isn't that great after all. Its fans claim that the cartoon is remembered for being a well written and mature show, but these are people who watched it as kids, and kids aren't exactly known for being great at judging the quality of a story's writing and drama. Tha cartoon isn't really remembered that fondly by people who aren't old-school Sonic fans, unlike many other cartoons from its time. It's even debatable whether most old-school Sonic fans really like it, as SatAM fans like to blow the size of the cartoon's fanbase waaay out of proportion. Maybe it's time to stop looking at it through rose-tinted nostalgia glasses and judge it for what it truly is, not what you remembered it being like, or what its fans make it out to be? Just something to think about. - CantComeUpWithAName (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, your very first edit was on my talk page, and to support my side of the argument. Thanks! You make some good points too, thanks for your thoughts. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons behind the consensus against IMDb's general use as a reliable source, please read the essay about citing IMDb. Salvidrim! 03:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The link leading to the page regarding the citation of IMDb is broken. Austin311 (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

'Twas a typo on my part, sorry. Salvidrim! 03:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems Salvidrim has largely covered the IMDB issue - it's not so much that it's "not reliable" as much of the info from IMDB is user-generated (ie any old person can contribute to it), and as such, violates WP:SPS.

For the other sources, it may be best if you read up on identifying what Wikipedia deems reliable sources. If the inaccuracies you're citing in Games Radar are true, it's unfortunate, however, we're not using it to cite that information, so it doesn't really matter. There is previous consensus at WP:VG/RS that it is a reliable, usable source. The same cannot be said about "Movie Freaks 365", which seems to be nothing more than a non-notable blog/fansite.

I agree that the reception section isn't great, but sadly, with it originating in the early 90's, there's not a lot of great coverage on the subject. (I've tried to improve it some myself.) However, it's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia documents what reliable sources say on it, not the "fanbase". Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I will not be citing the fanbase when writing in the Reception section and I will follow Wikipedia's guidelines when writing in it. With that being said, Games Radar is indeed a reliable source for citing video games, however according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Reliable sources it is not a reliable source for television as it is not listed among the list of reliable sources. Austin311 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think WP:TV's link is going to be much of an authority here. That list was made by 1 or 2 people, 3 years ago, and is extremely incomplete. (Read it - almost every entry only says "supposedly reliable" or ends in a question mark. It looks like it was abandoned long before it was finished, or even useable. Conversely, considering we're talking about a TV series based on a video game, I'm pretty sure WP:VG applies here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

On 5 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Danganronpa, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the video game Danganronpa is to have an anime television series based on it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Danganronpa. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Oddworld. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Way ahead of you! ;) Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I'm very aware franchises are the same thing as series. I'm also sorry I didn't discuss this first - I just used an older version of the template, as I saw that many franchises were removed. I didn't mean to leave in Steel Diver, however - that was a mistake. I went over this a few times to make sure there were no single games. Eternal Darkness, on the other hand, I left in, as the copyright was once again renewed by Nintendo, signifying a new game is in the works. However, I will keep your message in mind next time I edit a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most were removed because they didn't qualify as a "series" of games, they were just one game. As long as Eternal Darkness is a single game, it doesn't belong on there either - a game and a trademark does not equal a franchise. They haven't even officially announced a second game, and trademarks don't always lead to games. Sergecross73 msg me 04:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. I won't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, there is a discussion about the use of categories at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#"X-only games" category and "Y games" category in video game articles. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I usually love helping on these sorts of things, and I appreciate the heads up...but I'm not very well versed in categories. I usually only remove blatantly wrong ones, and only really add the very most obvious ones to the articles I create, as a starting point for them. (You know, like "Sega Games" to a Sonic article.) If anything, it would probably be a good conversation for me to watch and learn more though, so thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you've protected the Freelancer.com page. See the pending discussion at Salvidrim's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Salvidrim#Freelancer.com_criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.7.12 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It was that discussion that lead me to the article, actually. There needs to be far less edit warring and far more discussion on the article's talk page. It's good that you're discussing with Salvidrim, but you need to discuss on the talk page with everyone else too, and find a consensus there on what should be included. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to the relevant talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.18.43 (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga)#Possibly unreliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, in case you did not read my response to you over on the talk page, there is a discussion going on at WP:RSN#Activeanime discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion is really getting out of hand fast with Niemti's most recent comments towards me, which I feel that they are out of line, and as such, I am tired of dealing with him. Can you please intervene in this matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

And another threatening and disparaging comment from him. This has got my goat, and I don't know what else to do about it, and now I am very tired of dealing with this user. Please do something. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the outcome is, I wish your goat all the best. Wasn't Niemti taken to RFC/U very recently? Salvidrim! ✉ 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Salvidrim. Niemti was taken to RFC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti. You may provide evidence in the Outside views section or, if you are involved, use the other users who endorse this summary section. While no personal attacks or harassment were intended on my part, this abuse did finally get to me, and even though I might think about considering retirement, I will be resilient no matter what. As I don't want to inflame the situation anymore, I have already asked Sergecross73 to help me. Thanks for your comments about this matter, Salvidrim. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Talk:Crusader Kings II.
Message added 01:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

look what this says Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media Speedy X 77 (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why are you linking to the article (not policy, but article) on social media? Our argument has nothing to do with social media. Sergecross73 msg me 09:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm seriously beginning to doubt this user's competency. As with the Mario article he'll deny sources exist unless you link him directly to it, as he doesn't seem to be aware of the citations at the end of the sentence(s) in question. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Me too. I don't think it worth arguing much further. We've made our point and he's still off in another world. If he fights it through trying to edit war, he's blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whats the matter Sergecross73 got nothing left. Speedy X 99 (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Stop being ridiculous. I've left my argument several times. I'll say it one more time so you can't cry foul. Then I'm done with your silliness. (Responding at Talk: Sonic R.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, the user is using a sock puppet account and through it has asked me to remove the sentence from Sonic R. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not make a user named The Speed Star7 i didnt? i promise i didnt. Speedy X 99 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you, but it doesn't matter; your disruptive editing and unconstructive talk page messages warranted the block, youve already served your block, and the other account is blocked. Now that you are unblocked, please read up on how Wikipedia works, and stop being disruptive, or you'll get blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didnt expect you to believe me but this fight is not over. Speedy X 99 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a "fight"; and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please stop obsessing over this. The article in question, Sonic R, is overall in pretty terrible shape. Why don't you focus your efforts in fixing it up some instead? Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, nice of you to give my "compromise" a chance there? You addressed a dispute in my adding in the mention of CTR, that's fair I suppose -- but gave no response at all to the other rewording I gave it, and just undid it entirely. --H Hog (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't happy with it, and I doubt Speedy X would be either, considering his agenda seems to be to remove all allusions to Mario from any Sonic articles. (Check out his contributions.) That being said, I had several problems with it. One, no sources or purpose in using CTR example. Secondly, you moved the sources around so that they were all grouped together rather than next to the specific points they reference. Third, like I was saying above, it was a reword that didn't address what Speedy X wanted, and I didn't like it because it took more words to say pretty much the same thing. It didn't solve anything. Sergecross73 msg me 21:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if you ask me... the sources you speak of only mention Mario Kart as minor notes (one saying how the game "feels like a reaction to Mario Kart", not necessarily mentioning their similarity; and the other lamenting how that "in any normal racer LIKE Mario Kart" you would have raced on tracks trying not to get one's "butt whooped off", again stated in a way implying that the games are not quite alike. So to me, they don't seem to do much to really link the games together besides a casual mention, proving nothing besides the fact that more people exist who compare Sonic R to Mario Kart. As for my "compromise", I've given my clarification behind that at my own talk page. Thanks for your patience. --H Hog (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But how could it "feel like a reaction" without being "similar"? Not to mention, the article clearly defines ways they are different in the sentences right after it. At no point is a Sonic R = Mario Kart statement made or inferred. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1 Sonic R goes on foot & Mario Kart goes on karts.

2 Sonic R you can change the weather Mario Kart you cant.

3 Sonic R does not use weapons Mario Kart does.

4 the gameplay is difference.

5 Sonic R has a replay Mario Kart doesnt.

6 Sonic R you collection rings Mario Kart you dont collection coins.

7 Sonic R characters are 3D models Mario Kart characters is not.

8 Sonic R you can change the time of the day Mario you cant.

9 And i have -> sources http://www.gamefaqs.com/saturn/198698-sonic-r/reviews/review-53958 said this ain't no Mario Kart 64.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/sonic-r they didnt say anything about Mario Kart so they dont think its like Mario Kart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2m1alNFQ8s he didnt say anything about Mario Kart so he doesnt think its like Mario Kart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbpAhAa61JQ he didnt say anything about Mario Kart so he doesnt think its like Mario Kart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6hQkAXdbE he didnt say anything about Mario Kart so he doesnt think its like Mario Kart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJDLWnORjh8 he didnt say anything about Mario Kart so he doesnt think its like Mario Kart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi0VkCMQpl0 they didnt say anything about Mario Kart so they dont think its like Mario Kart. if they are really similar they would have said something. Speedy X 99 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:YOUTUBE is not a reliable source.
2. Gamefaqs is not a reliable source. (See WP:VG/RS
3. Most of 1-8 is already explained in the article, with better wording and sources.
4. The fact a reviewer didn't mention something does NOT prove your point. It could mean any number of things. Perhaps they thought it was similar but decided not to put that in their review. Maybe they never played Mario Kart. There's an infinite number of possibilities. It absolutely doesn't prove your point though.

• As I said before, you're better off learning how Wikipedia works rather than wasting your time digging up unusable or redundant stuff like this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that Sonic the Editer1125 is another sock puppet. His only contributions have been to the Sonic R talk page and this edit to Mario Pinball Land. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I've noticed that too, and had the same thought. I'm rather tired of dealing with this user, but I've found several more reliable sources that support my stance, so I figure there's nothing left to discuss, and usually when editors like this run out of things to argue, they either stop altogether, or get worse. If they get worse, I'll be quick to be taking action. Anyways, thank you for the note though. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I now have no doubt that this is the same editor. An IP re-added the false information, the same one that asked me why I undid Speedy X 77's edit on Mario. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, don't get me wrong, because I personally believe Speedy X is all of these people, but don't your links above just prove that the IP is "Sonic the Editor"? (EDIT: Nevermind, I understand what you're getting at now. You're saying the IP is clearly Sonic the Editor, and the IP went and left the exact same sort of message on your talk page as Speedy X did, connecting all three. Correct? Sergecross73 msg me 01:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. I think it is obvious by now that this user will continue to be disruptive until he gets what he wants, as evidenced on Mario Pinball Land. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Playing "Devil's advocate" for a moment, but Sonic Spinball really is as much like Mario Pinball Land as Mario Kart is like Sonic R. The fact that Speedy most likely added the line purely out of spite along with Sonic fanboyism, doesn't make it less true... --H Hog (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't argue that point, but Thomas was far within his rights to remove it as long as it was unsourced, which it was. If someone re-added it with a reliable source, I wouldn't challenge it. I kind of doubt Thomas would either, since that was the only grounds he gave for removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The logo (box, title screen) use "the shooting star" and I doubt there's a way to find another alternative, since it's a Japan-only subtitle. If it was just ALL CAPS it'd be easy. But when you have "Ristar" and then "the shooting star", and you care about consistency at all, there really isn't another path to take without hunting down all these crazy anime and game articles and doing the same to them, never mind how ridiculous it looks. Because hey, "stylization" is way better than "fixing" stuff. We don't use "iPad" because "everyone else uses it", we use "iPad" because everyone else knows that shit works, you know? However, we need to correct people when it's clear they're wrong, and that's usually simpler than it sounds, people just fight me all the time because they praise their precious MobyGames or GameFAQs (oh god, don't get me started on how GameFAQs handles its data) or KLOV or whatever stupid site barely cares about any of its data.

People make fun of Japan and English, but they really, really don't understand the situation, no. These people barely understand English as is, so what can you do, really? Despatche (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess the box art does say that. I do feel it was more of a "font choice" than a conscious decision to actually stylize it that way, but it's not worth fighting over. Sergecross73 msg me 18:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just curious if there was a formal process to starting a new Task Force under the Video Games Wikiproject? I would be very interested in making one for improving Paradox Interactive game articles if there's enough interest amongst wikipedians in creating one. I would be much abliged if you could offer any advice. Thanks, —  dain- talk   23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, I've never started one myself. From what I've gathered in my time here, it seems like only the largest scope WikiProjects do okay; it seems like a lot of the smaller WikiProjects and Task Forces tend to run out of steam relatively quickly. So I've never bothered to try to make one myself.

You could probably just ask if there is interest at the talk page at WikiProject Video Games. If they think it's plausible, they'll help or point you in the right direction, and if they don't, then you can still use WP:VG as an area to pose questions or ask for help on working it. I frequently ask and answer questions there myself, usually it's helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Serge, I really appreciate the assistance.—  dain- talk   22:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your block, I had already reported the user to SPI. In the future, should I come straight to you or send it there nonetheless? Salvidrim! ✉ 19:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel SPI isn't necessary as long as he's doing his typical routine where it's very clear that it's him. (like this time.) You can just come to me and I'll block him. (Or, assuming your RFA keeps going well, you can block him yourself too, unless you'd prefer I take care of it for whatever reason. I don't see a problem in us being INVOLVED, considering the "any reasonable admin" clause and the clear cut nature of a ban. But I have no problem in blocking him however many times I need to if you'd rather not.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm no more (or less) involved than you are, so either one of us is fine, I guess (assuming the RfA does maintain its current course. Salvidrim! ✉ 20:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I just meant more that I'd handle it if you're tired of dealing with it or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed your RfA as successful, and apologize for the delay. Congratulations, and good luck with your new tools! Maxim_(talk) 12:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your successful RfA! I knew you would come through. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congratulations and Happy Thanksgiving! AutomaticStrikeout 14:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congrats and Happy Thanksgiving! I boldly updated your user page. TBrandley 15:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congratulations! That was a great RFA. There's some tips to get you started at Wikipedia:New admin school. Please let me know if you have any problems. Best wishes, – Dianna (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congrats! Now grab that mop and get to work! :) --McDoobAU93 17:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you all! :) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• My congratulations on your success too. I was incredibly impressed with your answer to 17. That question was practically a no-win, and yet you achieved a definite win.—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 17:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congratulations ou your successful RfA and Happy Thanksgiving! Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congrats man! Happy Thanksgiving! NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 02:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you both! Sergecross73 msg me 13:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
• Congrats Serge,ban vandal asses!!!~Tailsman67~
• YOU ROCK!! --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, 1 and 1/2 months later and I still get comments on it? Haha. Seriously though, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 23:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a combination of final exams and winter holidays seem to have blocked this from my consciousness, but you have my much-belated congrats on this. A worthy choice by the community, I think. -Thibbs (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No problem, thanks Thibbs! Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The album has a name, it's self-titled. It's not as if the article is titled "Device's first album". Just because there is no track listing doesn't mean it fails. There is enough verifiable information in the sources I provided for an article. The1337gamer (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what WP:HAMMER says, and right now everything there is ripped straight from the parent article. It's completely redundant at this point. All you have to do is revert my redirect once it has a track list, it's not like I'm wiping out all of your work or anything. It's just WP:TOOSOON right now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I'm not trying to yell at people. Just trying to get their attention, which is why I used big letters. I feel guilty for this however, and I won't say anything mean anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the list of the voice actors under the characters names like you told me too. Sorry that I re-added them back before. Supermariokart64 (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome! ;) Supermariokart64 (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just so you know, when you have multiple sentences that use the same reference, like so:

The title character, Sonic the Hedgehog, is the fastest of the characters, and is the only one with the ability to perform a "double jump", being able to perform a second jump in mid-air.<ref>Sonic R Instruction Booklet. North American, Sega Saturn version. p 17</ref> Tails is the only character with the ability to fly for a short time.<ref>Sonic R Instruction Booklet. North American, Sega Saturn version. p 17</ref>

You can assign a name to a reference, and then just re-use that reference by calling it by name instead of repeating the whole reference over and over. That way, if something about the reference changes, like the access date or if the URL becomes archived, you only need to change it once instead of 9 times.

The title character, Sonic the Hedgehog, is the fastest of the characters, and is the only one with the ability to perform a "double jump", being able to perform a second jump in mid-air.<ref name="booklet 17">Sonic R Instruction Booklet. North American, Sega Saturn version. p 17</ref> Tails is the only character with the ability to fly for a short time.<ref name="booklet 17"/>

Later! --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I technically know this, but I tend to mess up the formatting most of the time, so I tend to just link them multiple times to be efficient with time. But you're right, I really ought to get this down. Thanks for the pointer, it'll help me memorize it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, recently I made this edit to Nintendoland, The youtube channel, Hey Ash Whatcha Playin'? made a video in 2011 describing a theme park called nintendoland, where older Nintendo characters can participate in a carnival like setting. Original Video While a latter video was revealed by the channel, that they were unawhere of its development, or that Nintendo had used their idea. Contested idea video. I am curious as to why you would remove this information as it pertains directly to the title in question, directly relateable, and from a decently reliable source, as you may know the creator of the HAWP is the voice for Tina for Gearbox studios, and there is factual proof their video was released long before the game came out. I personally would like these types of edits on common articles as Wikipedia shows both sides of an idea, therefore more objective and more informative. Should I had been researching about the game Nintendoland this information would have been relevant to me. Your answer or rebuttal is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There's two main problems here:

1. Sources - WP:YOUTUBE is typically not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. It's too easy to fake stuff, because it relies on user generated info that anyone could supply. With a little work, just about anyone can upload a video of themselves with a crackpot theory of how they thought of a game idea first. It would be different if there was a source that couldn't be faked, for instance, an article from IGN or Eurogamer to confirm things. But then there's issue #2:
2. Coincidence - Is it really that big of a deal? It's not the most original idea in the world - slamming together a bunch of Nintendo characters in a mini-game collection. I don't think it's that uncommon for people to predict this sort of stuff. I'm sure as soon as Mario Kart came out, some guy out there though Hey, what if they put Sonic in a Kart racer?, or when Smash Bros came out, I'm sure there were plenty of people who thought What if Sony did the same thing?. I don't think it takes much to come up with these types of things before they are actually made... Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are two good points but with some flaws, the date uploaded to a channel and/or youtube profile cannot be faked, and if you follow the links you will the video of the idea proposed was posted before the development of the game was announced. And I would concur that given they were two distinctly random events the probability they are connected are low, but the person in question has reasonable influence in the department at question, and the probability one party used the other's idea is probable. Try watching the videos and you may gain more insight. Side note, by saying anyone can post anything on youtube, therefore its probable the information is flawed, is applicable to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

TPS here. It's incredibly improbable that "Nintendo used their idea." Video games take years to develop, so a video that appeared in 2011 could not have had influence on a game that was released only a year later. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Video Games do not take years to develop, a lot of video games are developed in less than a year Gears of War: Judgment is one. Its no longer relevant though as the posting date no longer shows the original, but shows Jun, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Here's the real issue with your post. Your detective work amounts to original thought, which is discouraged as a basis for edits on Wikipedia. If the makers of this video truly feel like their idea has been stolen, then they should take their grievances to the courts and let things play out there. When the gaming media starts covering the court case, then it can be added to the article, since those gaming websites would be considered reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Continuing in regards to YouTube. As Sergecross mentioned, YouTube simply isn't a reliable source. Any number of possibilities exist. How about this one ... what if the makers of the video got a tip that Nintendo was working on a theme-park-style video game and they decided to slam out a video and try and take credit for the idea if Nintendo eventually released the game? Such a scenario is no more or no less plausible than the one you present with the video. --McDoobAU93 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo says it themselves that Nintendo Land started development the same time the Wii U started development. This makes your case completely false. Also, the time a game's announced does mean equal the time the game started development. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for responding here. I'm sorry Pusalieth, but any number of these responses are reasons not to put it in the article. Youtube isn't a useable source, HAWP isn't what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source, McDoob shows that your theory is unusable because it's original research, while Thomas shows that there's proof that debunks your theory anyways, as Nintendo was working on this prior to your Youtube source. Take your pic, any of these are valid reasons for removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of waste but I would like to address some issues, McDoobAU93, if you read my post you will see I presented that idea, and the reason why one is more probable, your using a logical fallacy called probability seperation, or sometimes called object related negativity. The events are not two seperate random events, with equal probability, besides going down that road results in nothing, a probable solution although true, is not nessecarily a fact. And single party verification is not verifiable and therefore not objective, thats why is called Hearsay, or in this case Exculpatory evidence, in which case to know if Nintendo truly used the idea you have to have access to information specifically stating they stole it, which is highly unlikely or not even true, or they admit it, which if they did take the idea they definitely wouldn't admit it, mearly because they'd have to pay damages and license the idea for each game sold. The biggest reason of all, the video is no longer date verified, there is no arguement to have, unless you'd like to argue the logic, critical thinking, analytics, etc. in which case please post on my page to not waste this user's page space, and/or time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I'll respond here because it won't take long. Your well-thought-out response completely missed the point. My point was that a fan-made YouTube video simply isn't considered reliable enough for inclusion because there is so little verification associated with it. The fact you focus more on the rationale for my example all but proves you missed it, unfortunately. --McDoobAU93 16:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the likes of McDoob, Salvidrim, SJones, Thomas, etc may comment all they want on my talk page, I enjoy it when you comment here, especially since your answers are just about always ones I would support. So I have no problem with this discussion taking place here.

That being said, Pusilieth, you seem good intentioned, but seem to lack understanding in what Wikipedia is, and how it works. It just isn't the place for theories like this. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sergecross73, these statements will be a argument of logic. McDoobAU93 I do understand your point, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, as the steps you used to come to your conclusion I believe are erroneous. Information is information, truth is truth, in no way shape or form should the source have anything to do with either one. Such as, if I say, "The majority of earth's population sees the sky as blue during the day." or "I am 24 years of age." This statement is coming from an irremediable source according to the rules of Wikipedia because they are subjective stated facts, right? wrong, thats the erroneous error. Both those statements are 100% correct, verifiable, provable, and objective, as it can be repeated at any point and the statement remains true, until the circumstances/variables change. To make them timeless I would state, "The majority of earth's population sees the sky as blue during the day, contemporaneous to Jan. 2013". same going for my age. By restricting the source in which information must be gathered from, limits the available sources, which is not a good idea, as this is a form of control to information and user's, all in the name of improving both, but instead degrades both over time. Just look at history, anytime any organization, whether thats a government or religion, limits the content that is "acceptable" it ultimately declines. This is also why the scientific community has withstood the test of time, information can be presented and accepted from anyone, anywhere, anytime, but that doesn't mean its concluded to be true or factual, which is the point I've been trying to make with "reliable sources". Besides just because there are set standards in establishing wikipedia content, if the rules are invalid, or inapplicable, or erroneous, change them, only computers that are non-sentient follow rules without deviation, and even worse, following rules explicitly takes away from humans greatest quality, sapience. Just ask yourself the question, of all the things I do, could those actions be replaced by a computer, if you answer that yes, then technically a non-sentient, non-sapient, machine can and eventually will replace you, -which has happened to millions of people- which personally would make me fell like crap, and I would change my way of thinking. And Sergecross73 although if you read my original post, I wasn't trying to present the statement as a theory, or as a proven fact, but merely as information, no emotion, motive, or agenda attached. I await your rebuttals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 02:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)