User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 12

FYI
173.68.110.16 replied with an inferred uncivil attack at you. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I actually caught it right away, and blocked him for it. (It was even more overt than the original violation.) I had just forgotten to put the block template on his talk page. I appreciate the heads up though, as I could have very easily never noticed his response. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me   12:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The RetroArch guy
Well, at least he's talking more about the technical aspects of his project rather than just blindly accusing everyone of having a vendetta. Progress in baby steps. At this point, unless he launches into another tirade, I don't have any real intention of reporting him, but I don't mind if you do. There's only so much BS we can be expected to put up with, really. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are pretty much my thoughts too. Additionally, I don't think its worth the time sending to ANI at this point, people like this who are both so aggressive and unwilling to learn how things work here, will either lose interest, or get blocked for doing something overtly offensive in front of a general Admin. I feel either one coming on pretty soon... Sergecross73   msg me   20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Especially now that an RFC (which I suspect will be closed pretty quick and I might get yelled at for) has been opened. Since he's calling into question either the policies themselves or how we're interpreting them, I figured that was a good way to get more input into this, such that he'll do either of the two things you mentioned or (preferably but unlikely, frankly) realize the error of his ways and shape up. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive given my 2 cents and will probably be done now unless things take a ridiculous return... Sergecross73   msg me   22:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've got it. He's crossed the line again, so now ANI's getting involved. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Xbox One
Usually I would take this to the request page, but since you have been actively involved on the article and have protected it before, I figured you wouldn't mind reinstating it. Quite a bit of unconstructive editing from IPs in the last few hours. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I don't mind doing stuff like this, and I used to do the same thing before I was an Admin, and have a go-to Admin or 2 who could help without waiting for a response at at one of the request places. So I get that. And I've restored it; its a high profile page that has received a lot of backlash, which is resulting in a lot of vandalism, so I think its necessary. Sergecross73   msg me   20:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wii_U
Hello, I've noticed you are an admin who frequently edits Wii U. I thought it was inappropriate to immediately start criticizing the system in the first paragraph as was previously done. A week or so ago I moved some of the criticism down into the reception section and immediately started a discussion about it on the talk page. So far only one other user has joined the discussion (and appears to agree with me). I was wondering if you could leave some input there. (I am asking because User:Mazty, an account that edits almost nothing other than Wii U recently reverted my move. I in turn reverted them and referred them to the discussion)

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC closure
 I requested snowball closure. That mazty guy and his opinions without reliable sources are just pissing me off and contributing to too much wikistress, I am going to log off for a while. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't know if they'll close it or not, the rampant arguing could be miscontstrued as there not being a clear consensus, but as I said, whether its closed or not, its pretty apparent there is not consensus to include, nor are we anywhere near it... Sergecross73   msg me   18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

- did not want the message to be public Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Email responded to. Sergecross73   msg me   00:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

FA prospect for Tales of Graces
Hi, I was hoping you could provide some assessments to see if Tales of Graces can reach FA. The only reasons I believe it might not make it to FA is the lack of information on some English voices for the characters or how the game was conceived since those two info don't exist. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey DragonZero. While I am an Admin, and a big Tales fan, I'm not usually not one to work things up to GA or FA. I tend to create C class articles or clean up existing articles to about B-level, or maintain already established GA/FA articles.
 * Anyways, have you tried talking to ? He's been doing amazing work cleaning up some of the Tales games on my watchlist. He's been doing such an amazing job that I've kinda been working on other things lately instead. I think he's been using Japanese sources too, something I can't do any of, as I have zero knowledge of the language. Anyways, try talking to him, he may be willing and able. Sergecross73   msg me   17:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm okay, thanks for the reply. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 20:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Preloaded Applications & Rollback of.. in History Of Video Games 8th Generation
Did you see all my messages? Someone changed the 3DS Game Card Launcher back... It shouldn't be there.

From 78.156.109.166 aka (but not same as) Pubserv (I sometimes use the Pubserv account, or just post form my IP;) 78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone voice any strong opinions against it, so I'm guessing it was probably added by as an accident, or by someone unaware of the discussion. Feel free to remove it again unless something changes... Sergecross73   msg me   19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! And thank you for always helping me with cleaning up my work! Sergecross73   msg me   23:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins members
Hello, Serge (if I may call you that),

I do not attempt to edit Wikipedia very often at all. One topic I happen to know a lot about is the Smashing Pumpkins. I see you edit that page very often. I want to tell you a brief story about my old experiences with an issue concerning the listing of band 'members'. Maybe the story will help you going forward as you work on the site.

There have been repeated disputes about the treatment by Wikipedia of different persons who have contributed to the Pumpkins. I used to argue, for one example -- and I see that this is still an active problem from my perspective -- that Melissa Auf der Maur's contributions did not deserve to be so greatly elevated in status relative to those of others, and those of Matt Walker in particular.

My arguments, evidence, and so forth, used to be repeatedly rejected by a persistent Wikipedia editor on the grounds that Auf der Maur was a 'full member' of the Smashing Pumpkins, while Matt Walker was not. I have the impression that this grounds for rejecting challenges to the current Pumpkins article still holds sway.

I simply want to suggest to you that definitive claims about who was ever 'considered a full member of the Pumpkins' essentially constitute original research - for there is not in reality a definitive list of members of the Smashing Pumpkins, nor has there ever been (and nor, of course, could there ever be).

What there is, in reality, is: (1) statements by Billy Corgan about his collaborators, and (2) evidence as to what the collaborators have actually done. In effect, when assessing the status of those collaborators, the current Wikipedia article attempts to completely privilege (1) over (2), but at the same time, the article does not cite any statements by Billy Corgan about who is a member or not, and when these matters have been debated on the Talk page, it has been amply demonstrated that Corgan's statements have varied, contradicted themselves, or been nonexistent.

In my view, the current articles dance around the fact that in a lot of ways Matt Walker's substantive contributions to the Pumpkins - his (2), in my taxonomy - were a lot greater than Melissa Auf der Maur's. For example, as I just edited the Pumpkins entry to point out, Walker played the drums on about half of Adore. The previous absence of that fact from the article is an example of the ways in which the privileged status of Auf der Maur vis-a-vis all other contributors is corrupting the presentation of the facts. But once the editors stop believing that the assertion "but so-and-so was a 'full member'" is a trump card that cannot be overcome with evidence, then the article will improve. Jjb (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Jjb. We can re-open discussions on this if you like. I was under the impression that they were currently correct, but I am open to hear what you have to say on it. (I'm pretty familiar with their background too, so hopefully that mix of knowledge of the band and Wiki-policy can be helpful.) As far as mentioning Matt Walker more frequently, I see no problem with that without discussion, unless/until someone feels you're focusing on him a little too much. As far as the membership stuff goes, lets discuss it. Do you prefer Smashing Pumpkins or List of The Smashing Pumpkins band members? Let's reconvene there. Sergecross73   msg me   14:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems again
I noticed the same admin pushing his weight around here and here. Threatening to delete an article over an edit war and threatening another good faith user with blocking in article talk space? I don't want to take it to ANI myself but I though I would ask your opinion first. Just found more harshness.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, he's being a little more brash than necessary, but I wouldn't take this to ANI personally. I've learned that people usually need to be really blatantly bad to get anywhere there. (Direct insults/swearing/threats etc.) It'd probably just lead to lots of wasted time, with lots of arguing and no results. I, and another editor, have asked him to cool down a bit. I'll try to keep an eye on things, but let me know if it looks like he actually makes any bad blocks or anything. Sergecross73   msg me   02:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is something fishy about these sculpture articles in Vancouver. The same nom went over to commons with some lame DRs. Here, here, and here. I fear that the admin may delete the article even after being involved in it. In that case I may just email WMF for Wikibullying.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not bullying you, he's expressing concern. Have you talked to him about it? Chill out! :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  12:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about him ignoring the AFD results and deleting the article anyways. That would be a major violation of Admin rights, and it's not like he could be sneaky and stealthily do it. Click on Pokemon-Epic of Time. See how it pretty clearly shows who deleted it? (I deleted that one because it was a hoax. There's no such thing.) So yeah, I doubt he'd do that, it'd be like "Admin Suicide". Sergecross73   msg me   12:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In theory he could supress the log entry (see User:Sergecross73/Sandbox), but it'd still be viewable by admins and would only make it worse. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  12:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I had not known that. But yeah, not only would it be unlikely, but Canoe, you can ask me to look into it if that ever did happen. And yeah, as Salvidrim says, BWilkins is being somewhat rude, but I don't think it would constitute as full-on harassment. It doesn't seem like he's especially doing anything in regards to deleting things, so I'd just ignore him for the time being. Sergecross73   msg me   13:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do plan to ignore him unless he keeps being rude. If the article is deleted then I will have it userfied so I have a link for all the media to see when I contact them about it. I may list those three lame DRs as well. I can see censoring porn on en:wp but to create three lame DRs with obscure websites claiming to be copyright holders of harmless art just has me baffled. I was offered admin at commons and I may un-decline and accept it at this point. @Salvidrim, did you even read those DRs over there? I have tried reasoning with Bwilkins and as a result he was banned from my talk page for similar rude behavior that went against policy. I won't be taking this to ANI if it escalates but I will warn the WMF and Mr. Wales before I link this all to Canadian media. We are very proud of our culture and arts up here. If you wish to delete all the ones in the USA that we aren't even allowed to host images of then go ahead. I may start with File:Cloud Gate (The Bean) from east'.jpg. I emailed the sculptor's people with no response. If he doesn't wish to provide a version of the sculpture for us then why should we host a fair use one for his articles? Seems that en:wp needs a bit of shake-up to put some of these bullies in their places. Media coverage and DRs of all these fair use art images may be a good way to start. These bullies keep forgetting that we are here to provide knowledge to our readers and not to trim and delete articles that are notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can concede is that BWilkins could be a little nicer, and that I personally tend to stay away from image related stuff because I find the policies confusing and I don't really have any motivation to work with images anyways. I don't believe you're really in any position to "warn" WMF or Jimmy Wales, as I doubt this is really of any interest to the "media". What you've got is grumpy people deleting some images, possibly a little hastily, not some anti-Canadian image conspiracy. I can continue to help you with this on the English Wikipedia, I can't help you if you start going down that route. Sergecross73   msg me   17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am just baffled at the double standard. We have many images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cloud_Gate and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Academy_Awards that violate http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:FOP I did mention both categories at the drama boards over there and no one seemed to care. I also created http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Canoe1967/Sculptors to help with the issue but that seems to lack support as well. Creating lame DRs to remove Canadian images that aren't violations seems like a waste of everyone's time.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Lay off the Canadian angle, buddy. I'm from up north too. This has strictly nothing to do with the WMF or Jimmy Wales. If you don't like it... walk away, I guess? :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We have Cloud Gate and Gate to the Northwest Passage that are two radically different articles about sculptures on en:wp. I don't see AfD and edit wars/block threats about all the OR, trivia, sculptor accolades in the 'merican one. If the media were contacted or our Canadian Heritage Ministry I think they would claim a double standard as well. Instead of en:wp this seems to be usa:wp.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like that's a fair comparison. Cloud Gate is a Featured Article, while the Gate to the Northwest Passage is only a Start Class article. And the person who nominated the Canadian one for deletion appears to be from Canada, judging by their name and User Page, and seems pretty active such topics. When I vote to delete American video games, and then create Japanese ones, I'm not on a "Pro-Japan", "Anti-America" proganda trip. I'm just trying to get rid of crappy articles and create notable ones. Sergecross73   msg me   18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is the Canadian one ever going to make it past start class if the admin and nom keep removing sourced material claiming 'trivial'. Cloud Gate is full of unsourced trivia. A whole table on how it was built? They are also removing material about the artist and their other works. The nom may have to look at it every day and may think that having the article or images deleted is someone sort of victory.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I didn't agree with that either, and I advocated re-adding the information in the discussion on the talk page. I noticed you have not even joined that discussion. You really ought to; if you go to other avenues like ANI, that's the first thing they're going to ask you, and if your answer is "No, I haven't discussed on the talk page." they're almost certain to not take you seriously, because that's supposed to be Step 1 to solving content disputes. So yes, I agree, I don't believe it should be deleted, and the AFD isn't really heading towards a consensus of "Delete". But if you want to make progress, you need to follow proper protocol, which means things like assuming good faith and not assuming that there's anti-Canadian motivations, and discussing on the talk page. Sergecross73   msg me   19:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to wait for the AfD to close as keep and then help with the article. LightShed is another one that was unilaterally re-directed without discussion. I find it hard to assume good faith with three lame image DRs over at commons caused by AfD and drive-by tagging here. IMHO the nom created the obscure image hosting pages to try and remove images at commons. I may ask admin over there to put a black mark on their record for abuse of the DR system.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing wrong with redirecting an article that only has one sentence and one reference. I was going to point out that this was something you hadn't challenged or argued against yourself either, but it seems you have in fact done that since then. Now, if the person continually tries to redirect it, without discussion or consensus, yes, that's not acceptable, but the initial redirect wasn't against any policy. (I'm strictly talking about policy here, I'm unfamiliar with the actual topic.) Sergecross73   msg me   13:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can explain English Wikipedia backwards and frontwards, but I really don't work with image stuff, so I really can't be of much help with Commons/Wikimedia stuff. I just don't know how that works. Sergecross73   msg me   18:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Images are abused far too much on en:wp. Most of the ones hosted here wouldn't last a speedy at commons. Most are Flickr washed copyvio. Non-free content review has a huge backlog that I gave up trying to help with because they kept moving the policy goalposts. They are still trying to move them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bike Race (video game)
Thank you for your opinion, as the article creator I admit and agree that the game has no good coverage, but it has received some popularity (maybe in the past only). Please let me know if anything new happens to this article. Thanks. Megahmad (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can't do more for you, I intended on digging up sources and !voting "Keep", but I can't find much out there. Right now, I'm not sure there's a valid argument for Keep unless people are swayed that being the #1 game on a platform is notable enough to ignore all rules or something. If I find more sources, I'll post them though... Sergecross73   msg me   18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. Appreciated. Megahmad (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sonic
Hello there. I have been busy lately with other things, but I am planning to take Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status as I did with Sonic Adventure obviously. The Sonic article has obviously failed GA status (it was not nominated by me, but by someone else). Can you give me some tips on how to improve these articles? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sjones, glad to see you're still working on VG/Sonic articles. I can discuss further tomorrow, but for now:

I'll try to browse over things some in the coming days and post thoughts on the talk pages. Sergecross73  msg me   03:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think both could have more reviews added to the prose in the Reception section.
 * While Czars many questions are a bit excessive in the peer review, we could probably address some of his points though.

Google
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis/Archive_20#Google

yes, I do find it sad, as well as your comment rather dismissive of the concerns of an unintenional googlebomb. However, I'm trying to be productive about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sega_Genesis#Google_Flavour_text - It would be great to get your input on that. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't find it sad that one correct name is used over another correct name, and I have no interest in rejoining those time-wasting discussions... Sergecross73   msg me   00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about renaming the article. That's done,no point hitting that dead horse any more, but I think the Flavour text, if it can be changed (I've no idea how google gets it) will help make it clearer for searchers, regardless of which name they are looking for 81.149.182.210 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Im unfamiliar with the concept, so I probably won't be of any help... Sergecross73   msg me   01:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested block of GVnayR
I see that you interacted with this user, GVnayR a few days ago. He was previously known as RyanVG, and he was once blocked here, am I right? Anyway, I should tell you who I am. I am an admin on Future Wiki, and I have had serious problems with this user. He has five, maybe more, users: RyanVG, GVnayR, Buck Satan, Muhammad Li and Master Bezzo, as well as many different IP addresses, with his main one being 64.136.126.140. He is clearly suckpuppeting, but is really bad at hiding, as all five users have the same person on their profile picture, and on one of his pages, he openly admits it. But he acts as many, making edits with one user and reverting them with another, and he also vandalizes pages, thus disrupting the wiki. Furthermore, he is sharing information about and pictures of himself and his family, information that is extremely personal and not suitable for a wiki. He says he's retired on his user page, but I don't believe this is the case. I want to make sure that he never disrupts a wiki again, be it Wikipedia or one that is part of Wikia, and therefore I strongly suggest that he is blocked once again, although this time permanently. He has made enough damage already. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. I understand your concern, however, as an Admin, I can't really make decisions based off of off-Wikipedia activities, nor can I block people pre-emptively for things they haven't done here yet. (If he's been into trouble in the past, he may be in a lot of people's "line of sight" too, so it would be especially bad to do such a controversial block.)
 * By all means though, if you have concerns about his behavior in the future, feel free to contact me. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me   13:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, and I understand why blocking him might not be the best idea. However, I do suggest that you and the other admins keep an eye on him. DaneOfScandinavy (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I don't mind keeping an eye on things. Let me know if you notice any new development. Sergecross73   msg me   18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoax user account
As a gaming-related administrator I trust, I decided to bring up this user - User:WindWakerMovie7382 - with you. Earlier today they created this account and added some false information regarding a supposed movie about The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker to various articles. However, they presented no sources and I am fairly sure this is all hoax information. (Unless, somehow, I did not see any news about this!) They haven't written anything since I reverted their edits and warned them, however I suggest a block may eventually be necessary if they persist. I don't think their edits at this point warrant a block, because they weren't extremely disruptive and may have been because they had false information, but the reason I am a bit concerned is that their username seems to suggest these sorts of edits are the sole purpose of their account. I'll see how it goes from here, but I just wanted to bring this to someone else's attention. Thanks,  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 11:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. How you propose to handle this sounds like the correct way to do it. I'll keep an eye on it, and keep me posted if you notice anything. Sergecross73   msg me   12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'll keep a look out to see if they do anything more, but at this point it looks like they may be finished after either 1. Realising that it wasn't real (AGF!) or 2. Not bothering to do any more, but I'll let you know if anything else comes up.  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 07:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A week later and... nothing. I think that editor may be done (at least for a while) so further action isn't necessary at this point. Thanks for helping with this! On a slightly related note, do you think I would ever be granted rollbacker privileges? They would have been helpful in some of the vandalism I've had to deal with!  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 09:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Go figure! Anyways, I was going to tell you to go request being a rollbacker, and then I realized that I personally have the rights to give you that. So yeah, I definitely trust you with it, you are definitely responsible and take things seriously, so there you go, you've got it! (My personal favorite part about rollback rights is an indirect feature; since it says "rollback" next to every place you can use rollback, its interesting to look at people's contribution list and see how often it shows up; if you see it, it confirms that the person's edits haven't been removed. Its good to get an idea of how much of a vandal's work was left behind. Not sure if that makes sense or not, but once you use it for a bit, hopefully you'll get what I mean... Sergecross73   msg me   12:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank-you very much! And thank-you for the kind words. I guess I have made some mistakes in my editing in the past but I hope to continue working with this great community to improve it as much as possible for the foreseeable future. And I definitely promise to use it responsibly! See you around!  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 12:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. And don't worry about it, I think just about everyone has a little bit of a rough start. In my first weeks here, I was fighting in support some edits that I never would now. (Fansite info on unreleased music tracks for an album, for example.) I know Salvidrim at least used to link to his first edit and it wasn't great either, haha. Anyways, its all in how we handle it going forward, something we've all done well with. Sergecross73   msg me   13:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nickelback "Pop Rock" issue.
Hey I seen a lot of users arguing with you about the Nickelback "Pop Rock," subject. I came here to tell you they're not "Pop Rock." Go to the Nickelback talk page and I just explained there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiiu91 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to you there, and pointed out flaws in almost everything you've said. You're argument is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure you're block evading or a sockpuppet... Sergecross73   msg me   02:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibility of a retirement...?
Given the fact that I was subjected to personal abuse and uncivil behavior and having been guilt-tripped and denigrated by a couple of long-term abusive users who are unable to work with others (such as Fladrif) in the past, I consider some ongoing accusations on my behavior as shameful, ridiculous and uncivil and also felt mortified by some members of the community who try to discredit my views. I felt that I have lost a little faith in the project a few months back when Fladrif had issues with me (he did not know me obviously, and that, combined with his edit history and the WBB ban appeal at WT:BASC was pretty upsetting to say the least, as well as this attack on an Arbitrator), but there are times when one must stand up for themselves (such as my ability to stand up to disruptive users and dealing with them). In fact, since Ched acknowledged the fact that he said negative things about me during a certain AN discussion in March, apologized and praised me for my efforts and appreciated all of the work that I have done (as I feel that I should be) back when he indefinitely blocked Fladrif back in April for chronic disruption and incivility as I did feel a little bit offended by his comments about me, I have always felt that my faith in the project has been restored to a significant degree. I think it's a good thing that Fladrif is gone from the project; I still find his conduct profoundly detrimental as Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, not the place for denigrating other users. Having also dealt with sock puppets of Fragments of Jade, Bambifan101 and Yourname, I have always taken a stand in dealing with disruptive users. Some users, however, like Zhoban, have also taken it to multiple other social networking sites, forums and blogs to harass and insult me there, as well as making observations about me in a negative light. As indicated in my introduction, it can be both "physically and emotionally stressful at the same time, and some of them are just not something that I signed on to do here. Things are seemingly going from bad to worse, and this has lead to very real concerns that users will no longer be content with the Internet activities and try to find ways to take it offline or even drive out productive editors." There is only one word for issues like these: corruption, and I feel that something must be done about this. However, I do sympathize with users who have departed the project (i.e. Bridies, Fastily, PMDrive1061 and AnmaFinotera) thanks to some of these issues with other editors. I have seen other users like Dreadstar leave in anger because of their actions, only to come back sooner or later. I feel like my energy is being drained a little bit and I have been contemplating about this matter, and at this point, do you think I should retire or not (I personally don't feel like I am ready to retire just yet, but want to take a semi-wikibreak due to the fall semester starting soon)? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Sjones. I'm sorry you're stressed out about Wikipedia again. The way I see it, there are a few ways to look at it.


 * 1) The simple one: I think you're a good editor, and the project is better having you around. I personally hope you stick around.
 * 2) The more complicated one: More than anything, you have to keep in mind that this is supposed to be a fun hobby. You've got to make sure you're enjoying yourself, since it's just a pass-time, it won't help get you though schooling, get a job, or anything else that are much more essential in life. With the exception of probably honing your writing or research skills, it doesn't have much of a benefit other than making yourself happy, so if it's not fulfilling that, then definitely don't let it affect what really matter in life.
 * 3) Personally, I recommend just editing in a capacity that makes you happy. (Obviously within the bounds of Wiki-policies.) That explains most of my editing habits. It's why I don't write Featured Articles or format my refs; when I start getting into that sort of nitty-gritty detail, it stops being fun, and starts feeling more like work. Nothing against people who do, they are good things to be done, I just leave it for others who don't mind. Its also why lately I've been doing my bigger projects on Wiki on music albums instead of video games. I'm getting a little tired of much of the video game writing populace on Wikipedia. (Not you, or anyone more experienced, like the type who have my talk page on watchlist, but more the random IPs and the newbies. I get tired of all the arguments, so I've been (temporarily) moving in a direction with less resistance.


 * So in conclusion, make sure you're still enjoying it, and change your edit habits accordingly to make yourself happy, whether it be changing the scope or topics, or editing less. You're a good editor, and I hope you stick around, but you've got to do what you've got to do.


 * Anyways, sorry to write you a book like this, but your message was pretty lengthy itself, so I figured it was appropriate. Feel free to discussing this with me as little or as much as you like in the future. Sergecross73   msg me   14:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Serge. After Fladrif posted that comment about me on my talk page back in March (needless to say, everything he posted on my talk page was extremely disgraceful, condescending, mortifying and uncivil and I lost some of my faith in the community after that) and taking a thorough look at his contributions afterwards, I knew that something was going on about his actions (his incivilty stretches way back to 2009, and he was sanctioned by Arbcom precisely for his actions, but he went back to his old ways afterwards). No one should make conclusions about strangers and his conduct, including his attacks on other users (including Penbat, whom he has my deepest sympathies for his issues with Fladrif) and the Arbitration Committee, resulted in that ANI thread (that was the place in which I said that I was convinced that he was being extremely disruptive and called his conduct "profoundly detrimental" to the encyclopedia, and if the list of differences on that thread are unconvincing enough, here are these differences provided by Keithbob from 2009-2012). That ANI discussion about Fladrif, coupled with Ched's apology, made me restore my faith in the community somewhat. In any case though, as I have stated numerous times in many discussions, I always stand by my community decisions. I never intend to cause disruption in the first place, but I was blocked for edit warring back in 2010 for putting an "indef semi-protection" tag, but I have since moved on from that and if you check my block log, you can see that it is my only block to date and I have not received any blocks after that. It's always a very sad day when a community-banned editor resorts to sockpuppetry (as with Fragments of Jade). However, I am still a little shocked that some users can get away with personal attacks, gloating, evading blocks and incivility. Such things and politicking are, in my view, very disgraceful and that's one of the reasons we all need to work for a better Wikipedia, not denigrate users over several years. Don't you agree? Anyway, I am still planning to take up Sonic Adventure 2 up to GA as well, but I have been busy with other things. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I don't find it surprising that there's so many people on Wikipedia doing ridiculous things, because I see so much ridiculousness both in real life, and the internet in general, but it is sad how much of it is out there. It seems to be the way of the world though; it's not alright, but you can't let yourself get too stressed out about it either, or you just cause yourself more undue stress.
 * Anyways, it from the sounds of it, it doesn't seem like you're leaving, so that's good. Just try not to take things to heart; just as I was saying to DarkToonLink on my talk page earlier, everyone has either rough starts or rough patches, so I doubt, for instance, that anyone would hold it against you that you got blocked three years back. (Unless you're at RFA, they might care, but that place can be ruthless!) I'll be around to help with SA2 and whatnot, but this week looks to be a very busy week that, after today, I'll probably mostly just have access from my phone, so I may not be that involved for a bit. But I'll be around and try to help. Sergecross73   msg me   18:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very good advice. As I have stated numerous times, I would be willing to forgive users who have been disruptive in the past if they vow not to change their behaviour, obey all of the rules or if they have completely changed their behavior. However I cannot forgive users who are either unable to work with others, will not change their behaviors nor those who alienate fellow editors. Some people here have shown a complete unwillingness to edit productively in a collaborative environment and we cannot do nothing about those who repeatedly denigrate users year after year. Some users have somehow tried to make trivial matters that are going autonomously my fault, and are keen to find faults with me (like what some users did to me months ago and that made me feel infuriated to say the least, but that part's mostly over by now), and I do not especially appreciate that type of flak for it. As I have stated in my talk header and on numerous discussions in the past, I am going to make this clear to everyone that I have a very low tolerance for any messages which I find to be harassing, haranguing, accusatory, inflammatory, incivil, heckling, insulting, condescending, disrespectful, abusive, venomous, yelling, annoying, embarassing, temperamental, rude, threatening, gloating or those that are full of vulgarity or containing profanity for any reason, as I consider these a power imbalance in communication. In fact, I have experienced situations like that a few times here and I find it extremely appalling that some users feel that it is acceptable to behave in that manner. Unlike some users who have issues with me, I am extremely calm as if I am swatting a mosquito and I obviously do not edit articles solely to harass other users, only to improve Wikipedia. And also, just to clarify my point, I am not a liar (since accusing someone of lying is uncivil) as I am a very nice person by nature, and I don't care if I get involved in disputes. Thanks for the helpful advice. I appreciate it very much. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, feel free to talk with me about whenever you like. And don't worry, I'm sure 99% of people understand your intentions and efforts are in good faith and good quality. Sergecross73   msg me   23:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not worried about that, and I agree with you that 99% of everyone here (even you, Salvidrim, PresN, Ched and other users who I get along with) understands my intentions and efforts as I always clearly use good faith and maintaining high quality articles. But there are some here who clearly don't because they obviously don't know me personally. After all, Wikipedia is just a website and I'm just saying, if a user had problems with my edits, they would discuss it on the talk page on the article involved or on my talk page or if they have problems with my behavior, they can bring it up on a venue they choose or discuss it on my talk page. If I ever get involved in a protracted edit war, I would ask on the talk page or somewhere. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it is with utter regret that I announce a temporary semi-retirement for the time being effective immediately, because I am beginning to feel a little bit tired and exhausted and dealing with disruptive users on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it's best for me to get some rest and come back when I am fully energized. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Im sorry to hear it, but as I was saying, you've gotta make sure you're enjoying it, so it probably is best you take a short break to recharge. Best of luck, and I'm sure ill see you around. Sergecross73   msg me   01:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I needed that, since I feel that my semi-retirement was much-needed obviously. I'm sure some people feel the same way about me. Farewell, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Be sure to come back soon ... don't know if there's a limit on bagging Bambi socks, and I wanna spread the wealth around. :) -- McDoob  AU93  01:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, McDoob. Before I leave, I have one last question I have been meaning to ask you: if one is about to announce their semi-retirement with an explanation, would it be best for them to declare it on one's user page or on a WikiProject page (or not, since off-topic posts on article or project talk pages can violate WP:NOTFORUM, and if I have done that, whether its intentional or unintentional, then I deeply apologize, as I was using good faith and was not intending to be disruptive)? I am looking for a yes/no answer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think it kinda falls into a gray area. I wouldn't worry about it. Sergecross73   msg me   21:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a very good answer in my opinion as I would not want to worry about it either, since it got deleted as completely irrelevant to WT:VG (I also partially felt that too), and after all, I feel that it is best for me to take a break for a while. Also, if it is possible, can you please fully-protect my user page and semi-protect my user talk page for a couple of weeks so I can enjoy my temporary semi-retirement? I think it's best if vandals do not edit either of my pages (mainly the talk page, although you can restore the indef semi-protection on my user page when I return). Thanks. With that, I'm out. Have fun, folks! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jones, I get the feeling you really want to take a break but are having trouble actually staying away. Do you feel it may be helpful to enforce your recovery break with a temporary disabling of the main account? :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means, I think temporarily disabling my account would do good. :-) Thanks for the suggestion, and you're right, I am having a bit of problems trying to keep off Wikipedia. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Pages protected. Sergecross73  msg me   00:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)