User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 13

Untitled The Legend Of Zelda Game (Wii U)
Hello, I'd like to know your position on this article and whether it's notable enough to be put up yet. I have started a discussion on its talk page, but I don't think its creator is interested.

I'm not asking for any action on your part, but I am interested in your opinion. ServiceGhost (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; I'm glad you value my opinion. I left a comment, and I bet a number of my talk page watchers may have interest as well. Sergecross73   msg me   19:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

About simmering down
I see your comment at ANI, telling me and Canoe to both "simmer down". My first reaction to reading it was not a good one. There's a reason that administrators are instructed not to issue "cool-down" blocks, and the same idea really applies here. I'm an experienced editor with a good track record, and I don't need to be lectured in that tone.

Now, that said, I really have never been particularly upset in any of this, now or earlier. The primary reason that I kept re-posting what I said about what I believe was needed from administrators, was that administrators were not doing anything. It is, after all, an administrators' noticeboard. It's not unreasonable for editors who come to ANI (and I wasn't the person who started the complaints) to expect a response from administrators. I very much recognized that there were overwhelming problems with TL;DR, so I actually thought that I was being helpful by trying to boil things down to something succinct, even though that ultimately did not prove successful. I wasn't doing any of that in anger. I was trying to help the editors who had come to ANI asking for help. And actually, in earlier parts of the discussion, it appeared to me that you recognized some value in what I said, in relation to what you had previously communicated to Canoe.

Going forward, I hope that you will understand what I am saying about not telling other editors to calm down. I really do mean it constructively. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. You made 3 of like the same subsections in a row, asking the same exact thing. Act frantic, and people are going to tell you to calm down. If you don't like it, don't act that way. It's nothing to get offended about. Sergecross73   msg me   22:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm sorry, but I don't know what to tell you, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you still believe ANI will help you, you haven't been paying attention! :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  23:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't follow Game of Thrones, but I definitely harbor no remaining confidence in ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha! Sergecross73   msg me   00:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't follow Game of Thrones? What is your life!? :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  00:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I kinda figured it was inescapable at this point! ;) Sergecross73   msg me   00:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Carney obsessed IP
I've tried to tell the IP that his behavior is disruptive and childish and he refuses to listen. He's currently edit warring on Karl Riedl. I've basically given a final warning in the summary in the last revert, and he's already reverted it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've warned him about that in 2 other articles as well. Blocked for a week. Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't noticed this third one yet. Sergecross73   msg me   18:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is unblocked now, and he immediately went and performed the same POV-pushing edits on Karl Riedl and Hulk (film). His edit-warring has escalated, AGAIN, on several articles despite warnings from me and at least two other editors. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Serge is available right now (hasn't made an edit since 5pm UTC), so I reported the IP to WP:AIV. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me   21:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The one thing we thought was resolved at the ANI, not resolved
Bummer. Related to this ANI. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if this is wrong, but this looks more like questioning whether a merge was done correctly more than any sort of bad faith/accusation type situation. I have no idea on the validity of the merge, so I don't know if that's a fair thought or not, but I don't see those difs as out of line... Sergecross73   msg me   17:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay
Sorry for snooping your userpage but I started a project to may be interested in. Cosplay images in articles. We are presently having a discussion at Talk:World_of_Warcraft. I am hoping that these discussions can be avoided and/or shortened by a minor addition to the image guidelines. So far there are only two of us still discussing the proposal on its talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I've said a few things, but that'll probably be about it; I'm not much of an image person, I don't tend to deal with Wikipedia's image policy that much, and I find Lucia pretty impossible to deal with, so I think that's the extent of what I can do for you. If you want to press further, you can always alert more of the Wikiprojects, or the WP:VILLAGEPUMP and see if you can get more discussion going. Best of luck! Sergecross73   msg me   22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your input and sorry for dragging you into another of my messes. I had never run into that editor before, I don't think. I did bring it up at VP/policy or the main pump. Many of them thought it was viable as a proposal, even if just to avoid so many discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now they are tag teaming and they accuse me of bad faith edits?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Their edit summaries seem to refer to the fact that your additions are already in the article elsewhere? So, they're probably not so much saying its "bad faith editing" as much as there being an WP:UNDUE problem? I'm not super familiar with the article or GM food controversies, so I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but you should probably talk it out on the talk page, it doesn't look like that's happened yet? Don't let them get you carried away and accidently break WP:3RR... Sergecross73   msg me   01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is the regulatory controversy section of Taco Bell GMO recall. This is the same incident that other editors keep claiming isn't notable and belongs in the environmental section and not the health section. None of the sources even mention it as an environmental issue. It was the first GMO recall and one source says it was the largest food recall ever at that time. The FDA and EPA were criticized over it because they new about it before hand and did not act. Not only did they not act but when the recall happened they didn't acknowledge earlier reports that unfit GMOs were in the food chain. The said they had 'no idea it was possible'. I think some editors just want to keep it buried way down in an article full of fluff that isn't even controversial. Most of these articles are tag team wp:iown to keep them whitewashed and censored. The discussions just stall out with no response to my questions and the material keeps getting removed when I add it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Back with the bad faith business, very bluntly too. And misrepresenting the discussion too. Apology meant nothing. I really don't know how to interact with you Canoe. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You have yet to answer my questions? Why is a health recall in the environmental section when all of the sources say it was a health issue and none state environmental? Why is notable sourced material removed without discussion? Why does an article about controversies contain so much fluff that is not controversial and biased to one side of the controversy? Why don't you answer my questions before I answer anymore of yours?--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please talk on the article, where I and others are trying to work with you, despite your constant accusations.Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions
I don't have the time to help with this one at the moment, but here's how I'd start handling things. Both of you should concentrate less on the other, and more on the content. Comment on content, not editors. Beyond that, there's many ways to handle things if discussions keep on deadlocking between the same 2 people. It includes: You guys have to do something rather than drilling in the same arguments and accusations though, or otherwise things will keep escalating, and one or both of you are likely to get blocked. (That's not a threat, I'm WP:INVOLVED so I'm unlikely to block you guys. I'm just saying you guys keep escalating and surely you're going to either break policy when getting carried away, or upset an Admin with all your arguing.) Sergecross73   msg me   20:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Notifying relevant WikiProjects. In a neutral way. Don't explain your stance or throw accusations there, just say there's a discussion that you'd like input in.
 * 2) Start up an WP:RFC.
 * 3) Request assistance at WP:DRN.
 * Thank you again for your time and input. We have tried DRN which was closed by a volunteer as stalled. My questions were not answered there either. There is a present RfC at Talk:Roundup_(herbicide) which should be closed as unmerge because of the valid policy arguments. My questions may seem argumentative but I consider them as just questions that should be answered in discussions. When I try to remove material that shouldn't be in an article it is reverted by tag team without my questions answered. When I try to add material it is the same result with me at the short end of 3RR with no discussion and the articles continued to be wp:owned by those that outnumber me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious: in what way are you WP:INVOLVED? (Having previously given warnings or advice in an administrator capacity is not considered involvement.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ive been trying to help Canoe in a number of areas the last few months, beyond the issues youve been part of. Usually, if its much beyond templated messages/warnings, I try not to use Admin rights, especially because there's plenty of editors who like to cry foul of INVOLVED rather quickly, and I don't like that to overshadow the real issue a hand. So i try to be extra cautionary. You're probably right to say that I'm not involved with J, I've only informed him on some policy stuff, but since I've only really ever interacted with him in regards with Canoe, I'm right back at my points I said before, unless I start dealing with him in scenarios w/o Canoe.  Sergecross73   msg me   00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar and cookies
Hello, Sergecross. How's it been going? I wanted to let you know that I'm going to be retiring from editing this website quite soon. I still think Wikipiedia is awesome, but I need to focus on other areas of my life. In the meantime, I'll give you some cookies and a barnstar. I appreciated working with you back in 2012; take it easy.

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its funny, at first I felt like an ass for not remembering who you are, but then I realized that's only because I mostly remember you by your prior user name. Once I remembered you were "Backtable" (I can remove that if you don't want any reference to that name anymore or something.) it made sense and I agree, I definitely enjoyed working with you too. I'm sad you'll be retiring, but as I always tell people, you got to put real life things first, especially if its work or schooling. Best of luck with whatever you're leaving for, and I hope to see you around if you're able to make time in the future! Sergecross73   msg me   00:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh that's okay, dude. I changed my name back in January, and have been used to it since then. Also, I don't object to your reference to my old name. My retirement doesn't mean I'll stop editing all together, but it just means I won't be logging on quite as much, if at all. If it's in the cards for me to return, then it'll happen, but I need to focus on my schooling and professional life for the time being. Have a good day. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Jake Gantt"
70.112.26.202 is this guy-- this edit shows him adding a fake "Winx Infinity: Dance Party 101" article and he keeps adding fake dates to Mario Kart 8. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's the same old crap he always does. Blocked. Thank you very much. Sergecross73   msg me   23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. While we're at it, there's another user I should bring up that keeps evading his block: Ganthony4186, NintendoRocks44, and 108.211.52.225 are all the same person. Their edits consist only of going to company articles (often the same exact ones, such as Sora Ltd., Nintendo, and Sharp Corporation) and adding "Gh&JUniversal.Corp" as a parent company to the infobox. The person vandalizes one article every few minutes when he appears. The first two accounts were blocked indefinitely, and the IP has recently been blocked for 31 hours. Just a heads up in case he pops up again. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the background. If he comes back and continues that, I'll give a longer block. Sergecross73   msg me   00:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sammyrocks44 is a new sockpuppet of the guy I mentioned. He's already vandalized Nintendo and HTC, and I've gone ahead and reported him. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was already taken care of before I could look into it. That's good though, he didn't get very far. Sergecross73   msg me   16:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Peter Somerville
Hate digging this up, but I'm in the middle of a long Wiki break but came back (shouldn't have) and noticed this edit []. What has flagged this for me is that User:Abnormally cold and User:Hook free have made identical edits. Hook free has been blocked for being User:The abominable Wiki troll who has a rather long list of confirmed sockpuppets. As I point out in June this user is part of a larger number of identical accounts (he claimeed as "fellow student(s) with similar interests). Clearly this is one person evading a block. I don't want to come back and become embroiled in a WP:SPI, so I'll let you take it from here. Thanks. Yankees 76  Talk 14:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like its already taken care of. Thanks for letting me know though. Sergecross73   msg me   15:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! I posted on another admin page only because he uncovered the original User:Hook free sockpuppet and I figured they would be familiar with the The abominable Wiki troll account. Cheers. Yankees 76  Talk 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

StarLink scandal
Thanks for the page delete. I suspect that you should delete this one too, just as a clean-up. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good catch, I've deleted that one as well. Let me know if there were any more, or if more pop up... Sergecross73   msg me   20:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you, too. No, that's the only one at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have the stomach for continuing your mediation of this dispute, could you please look in on the discussion at Talk:Genetically modified food controversies, and particularly what I said here:. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind helping, although real life is hectic at the moment, and I'm tangled up in another Wiki-argument of my own, so I'm not sure just how much I'll be able to offer at the moment... Sergecross73   msg me   12:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm very sympathetic to that, and I think that what you already did was very helpful. It's probably going to end up being something that ArbCom will have to deal with. For whatever it's worth, I see that the other editor just posted a rather, well, intense reply to your comment there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, this articles not on my watchlist yet so I hadn't noticed. I apologize that I responded there right after you said you'd prefer people to respond on his talk page. I missed the part where you said that the first time reading it... Sergecross73   msg me   19:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I liked what you did, and I may have worded my own comment in an unclear manner. As I see it, you replied as an administrator, and my comment was directed at the other (non-admin) editors who are at that page. As you know, there is a strong risk of bickering being set off, and I was hoping to nip that in the bud. Anyway, what you said was fine, and I'll put a small clarification there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Shrine Maiden
The discussion on XBox One obviously isn't going anywhere. Think it's time to consider a Request for Comment? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's even needed. There's such a clear consensus, we probably ought to just stop arguing with her and let the consensus stand as is. (yes, I knowing the worst offender. ) Sergecross73   msg me   19:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. Why "Shrine Maiden"? —017Bluefield (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not if I get exactly what you're asking here, but the general situation is that the user that goes by Shrine Maiden maiden is being rather stubborn in 2 concurrent conversations on the same thing. While Thomas suggested an RFC, I didn't think that wasn't even necessary since consensus is unanimously against her.  Sergecross73   msg me   23:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Okay. The title just caught my eye for some reason. —017Bluefield (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, I guess there wasn't much context here. I could see it being hard to follow if you weren't in the discussions. Sergecross73   msg me   23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 McDoob AU93  03:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I formally request...
I formally request you to stop hounding every situation that you come across relating to me. Everything that you have done is based off of isolated events, which is why i'm banned from anime and manga (a wiki project you never go to) and ignored all evidence i provided.

Yes, i do believe it was unjust. should i think otherwise? and is that reason enough to keep hounding me? FOr once, leave me alone. You're not a good admin, you're an abusive one. And i know most of the votes in the previous ANI are mostly based on your and lukeno94 (which i find ridiculous because that editor made it clear how bias he was when he said i "misread" a comment, which only one isolated event occured)

If i do get unbanned. it wouldn't affect you, it wouldn't affect any editors except for the problematic ones. so just stop hounding me. your opinion isn't valuable enough. Even if one would claim i didn't learn a thing from it (which i guarantee you, even after this ban, this had only caused more conflict than solve anything. In fact it seems like this is meant to be a freit train for permanent banning)Lucia Black (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Be careful with what you say, you shouldn't really call people bad admins or abusive because of a disagreement on an issue. I don't actually know what this issue is about, but Serge has been a been a great admin in all the dealings I've had with him. Try and deal with the issue itself, not the person.  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 03:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to stop perceived harassment is to stay off the other person's talk page... just sayin'. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  &#9993;  05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvidrim: Are you being serious? Everytime you say something and ends with "just saying". It seems like your beiing sarcastic. What I'm doing is confronting the issue. If I don't say anything, he'll do it again.


 * darktoonlink. That's the problem. In this case, this admin goes out of his way to add 2 cents about me aand constantly interferes. Its tiring. I would like it to stop. And for him to leave me alone in matters I know he can avoid.


 * his personal opinion on me, has led him to dismiss actual concrete repeated personal attacks, and leaves others to be influenced by his opinion. I ask you, should I think that's a good admin? I don't want it. All I want is some peace when editing wikipedia. If a debate on content has to be made, so be it. But I rather he avoid me in general.


 * I'm sure admins act like admins 90% of the time. I just think that 10% od that time can be risked by an editor getting on their badside. And if that happens it sticks.Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't actually recall ever having dealings with you before, and since you haven't linked anything you've said, I don't really know much about the situation. So, I don't think I actually have business getting involved here, so I should really leave it up to you and Serge. In regards to my first comment, as I said before, I don't really know the exact issue, I just wanted to remind you of that policy.  Dark Toon Link Heyaah! 07:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. Im not hounding you, I merely have AN and ANI on my watch list, and make comments on cases I'm knowledgable about. Similar to what Salvidrim said, perhaps if you don't like it, you shouldn't be the subject of AN/ANI reports all the time? Also, as Salvidrim said, it'd help if you didn't always post on my talk page, or as DarkToonLink said, make ridiculous accusations of bad faith on my talk page. (I don't recall asking for your evaluation as an Admin, for example.)

Don't blame me for your problems, it's all on you, and how you interact with others. Don't get mad when everyone calls you on it. Make changes in how you handle yourself. Sergecross73  msg me   10:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We both know this isn't because "I" was the subject of AN/ANI. This was because certain editors would close any argument (without closure) on ANI. That idea of me. Being the subject was something you and luke decided to push. And even when I provided proof and evidence. It didn't matter. And you both tagteamed your way into dismissing it (for example, lukeno94 defended incivility from issues relating content, dismissed incivility because he didn't deem me a saint, and found the evidence looked bad on me for simply finding it in the archive. But even when I questioned all that with subjectivity. You comment for him and instead vote and sarcastically dismiss my comment.) You're not knowledgeable of any subject relating to me other than your 1st hand/2nd hand experience from m,, and you should know better to use that to judge everything else.


 * How I handle myself with other editors is just fine, any editor who has any issues with me are isolated and they also have issues of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Most of the issues people have with me is CONTENT related. Other than that, only a select handful of editors (who have also been problematic) such as Niemti, and Canoe attempt to use their own personal bias reasons. There's also the fact that some people don't care about overall behavior. If you leave a bad impression on them, regardless if their correct they're going to assume its the same problem (lukeno94 with the idea of misinterpretting comments).


 * This ban has only brought more conflict as the said editor who got away has already hounded me in several aspects and attempted to block me for attempting to remove a comment in my own talkpage. This editor also interferes with interacting with me several times, and despite advice given to him, he ignores it. If I get unbanned. It wouldn't be the end of the world.Lucia Black (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, don't tell me what I know or don't know. My explanation has already been given, and its easy to prove; you have been at AN/ANI countless times lately, whether it be people bringing you up, or your failed attempts to report others. AN/ANI are on my watchlist, and I comment on discussions that pop up that I can give insight on. The End. Any more bad-faith accusations and conjecture on my talk page are going to be reverted on the spot. Sergecross73   msg me   16:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

And I can easily prove what I brought up aswell. But if the roles were reversed and I (as an admin) sarcastically dismissed your comment (keep in mind, sarcasm is easy to read when using italics. So its not badfaith is that's what you intended), I'm sure you would react negatively. I can most certainly, definitely, and guarantee you that you don't know me. So I ask again, leave me alone in any subject related to ANI. You don't give insight and I have definite proof of that. But whose going to search tthrough the countless archives? I have the proof, but you seen it yourself. All I ask is you leave your opinions out of it. I already tolerate enough from you outside ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Request denied. I'm free to respond to questions that are posted in the Admin noticeboards. It would be one thing if it was being labeled as unhelpful or disruptive, but consensus keeps on falling inline with my stance every time, so that's hardly the case here. Keep out of trouble, and I won't have anything to respond to in the first place, right? Sergecross73   msg me   18:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally classify them unhelpful, you only reference issues you have with me personally every single time, you never comment on the issue at hand other than "not needing admin action" when disruptive editors like niemti (another editor classified as disruptive) decide to make a campaign against me (in which you openly admitted wasn't wrong only because you agreed to what he was saying, not whether his actions were wrong.) and disrupting consensus building by making comments on editors and not even attempt to comment on content.


 * For the most part, you judge me before you judge the situation. Can you honestly say you see every ANI report i make as fresh new one that could be deemed worthy of taking admin action? I believe an editor can vandalize my own talkpage and you wouldn't find it to be admin worthy.


 * I'm tired...I'm not a vandal, and I'm most certainly not disruptive (at least when it comes to building a consensus if you don't agree). The most you could say is i show my emotions more openly than others. Yes, i have issues with specific editors. But not all, and some even find me helpful. The most you can say is that I'm not the most friendly editor when it comes to uncivil editors. BUT that's as much as you can say. I've seen editors curse to others without justification. and even when reported, editors let it slide. And it's most certainly not worthy of banning the editor for such things.Lucia Black (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, last response on this, because like usual, I'm very tired of arguing circles with you. Look, again, every time I comment at these ANI/AN cases, consensus sides with me. If that's not proof of "The problem's not Serge, its Lucia.", then I don't know what is. Stop blaming the repercussions of your actions on me. Your various blocks and bans don't happen because of me, they happen because of your actions, and because consensus is found regarding that. I've never opened any cases against you, and I've never enacted administrative action against you, I've only given my 2 cents in discussions regarding you. Stop obsessing over me, which is one small piece of the collective puzzle of people who comment about you at ANI, and focus inward towards yourself. If you weren't constantly rubbing people the wrong way, no one would want to be taking you to ANI/AN/mediation all the time. Instead of just pointing fingers after the fact, fix things at the source of the problems - your actions. Sergecross73   msg me   20:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Virtual Boy games
I think there's a good amount of sources for Mario Clash; I've found seven with more to add. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed a little about that from my watchlist. Nice work on that; I was wrong to doubt you! Sergecross73   msg me   15:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work finding a ref supporting the inclusion of a Warioware game being based off of Mario Clash's premise too. (I assume that was you?) Back in the day I verified it was true, since it was one of the 3DS Ambassador games, but I could find a source to prove it for the life of me. (It has been like 2 or so years since I actively worked on it. Perhaps my source hunting has gotten better since then? I tend to think I'm good at it typically...) Sergecross73   msg me   15:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've collected various sources that can be used for the articles here. A lot of it is limited access stuff; anything of that sort will be taken care of by me. More will be added soon. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice! I've been limited as far as how much free time I have, and when I am here, I tend to keep getting sucked into arguments, but I will try to help some with this. I typically enjoy working on more obscure video game articles, so VB fits in to that pretty well... Sergecross73   msg me
 * Huh, I also listed a bunch of sources for Mario's Tennis on its talk page way back in January 2012. Totally forgot about that, must have gotten distracted or lost interest or something. I'm working in integrating some of that into the article. Sergecross73   msg me   18:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Rome II... again
Sorry that it's being brought up again but following on our last exchange in the Video Games Project page, the Total War: Rome II seems to be coming under fire again except this time with more than just user scores but also forum posts and heavy POV. While I've removed it and explained why I'm passing this information on just in case as you suggested before. There's always the possibility such edits will be ignored. Thank you again. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've protected it again. Don't worry, I don't mind helping, while I don't especially have interest in this particular game, I know I always appreciated it when an Admin would help me out in these situations. Let me know if you need further help. I was going to leave a note on the talk page as to why the IPs edits are unacceptable, but it seems like you and another user had pretty well explained in the talk page a few weeks back. Still, I can help more, just let me know. Sergecross73   msg me   18:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By all means and thank you. I myself am not heavily invested in the subject matter, rather I'm there because I know it's currently what I'd call I "high risk" article. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Exstetra
I did not insult you; that you took it to mean yourself only proves my point. This is not content, these are typos; it is completely uncontroversial to fix them, and there is absolutely nothing on the talk page about this problem. You have gone too far, Sergecross. Despatche (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Despatche, I just reviewed the edit that Sergecross called you out on, and I have to say I agree with him. Perhaps you weren't targeting him specifically, but your edit summary went way over the line in terms of civil tone and went very easily into personal-attack territory.  I have already asked you in the past (in a different place) to tone down your responses - you're getting way too worked up over what to me seem like trivial content matters, and it's going to get you blocked soon for being overly disruptive if you keep it up. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And for the benefit of both of you, I started a section in Talk:Exstetra for you to hash it out per WP:BRD. For future reference, Despatche, the person reverting you is not obligated to start a BRD discussion, and the absence of one doesn't mean you can ignore the policy. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Despatche, you wrote that "anyone who thinks that would have to be retarded", and I had just re-added that information into the article, so all you have to do is add 2 and 2 together to get your not-so-subtle insult. Even if you didn't mean it that way, there's no excuse for using "retarded" in a derogatory manner anyways. Also, it doesn't matter how "uncontroversal" you feel something is, if its challenged, you discuss it on the talk page. Kiefer, thank you for your help. Sergecross73  msg me   10:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a neutral note at WP:VG about the discussion at Talk:Exstetra as well, FYI, to generate more discussion. Sergecross73   msg me   15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sega Franchises Edit War
See the edit war for yourself. Without getting into the details of the dispute, I'd recommend protecting the page. Sincerely,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Protected, started an area for discussion on talk page. Thanks for the heads up. Sergecross73   msg me   23:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion in progress
Hi Sergecross. Wanted to ask if you could join in briefly on a discussion I'm having with Red Phoenix regarding the Sega Genesis article? Just want to get your opinion on something. Thanks. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 06:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're...discussing renaming discussions again? I'm entirely against this, its far too much wasted time and people getting all worked up. I really can't believe you want to go through all of that again... Sergecross73   msg me   15:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviving this just a bit: I never actually saw your reply to me here, but I wanted to let you know that we've achieved Good Article status on the current Genesis article, and there's a stronger contingent now for supporting a proper WP:RM discussion about moving the article back to "Mega Drive", now that the article as a whole has changed. I've volunteered to start that discussion and to fully explain why I believe the situation is different now - the main reason being that we've addressed most of the issues that were contributing to the factionism we had in the first place (particularly the sales figures and NA-centrism problems). I will, of course, still abide by consensus, but I think we have a better basis for real productive discussion this time than we've had in years, perhaps at any time in the article's history. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 03:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You can't have reasonably been expecting any other outcome... :) ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do believe I could have, but I'm disappointed that I probably shouldn't have. I am apparently way too optimistic for my own good. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 04:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Optimism is always good, but without a healthy dose of realism is impacts expectations in an undesirable way. Nobody can fault you for trying to help, though! ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
I know the current version of the "Sega-Sammy" template was created by me with your support, but I'm starting to think it was a terrible mistake. If I've lost my mind, please straighten me out. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)