User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 81

Superorganism
As requested, here is a suggested alternative link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSongRemainsTheSame/comments/f6cfwf/peter_bjorn_and_john_young_folks_and/

Any thoughts?

Dster (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As already stated, it needs to be a reliable source directly connecting the ideas. It cannot be a "listen to the similarities" (violates WP:OR) and it cannot be be a forum post like Reddit (violates WP:USERG). Until you understand what a usable source is on Wikipedia, please read WP:RSMUSIC for a list of sources that would be considered a usable source and WP:NOTRSMUSIC for ones to stay away from. Sergecross73   msg me  18:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling here -- the songs really are duplicates (bpm, key, structure), it's been demonstrated clearly, and the context is a Wikipedia band page full of violations of Wikipedia policy (but in every other case flattering to the band). I take it that the policies should be applied in a contextual way -- is that correct? I am very interested in musical borrowing, and this is perhaps the clearest and most obvious case I've encountered. Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks for taking the time to read this. Dster (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There being other policy violations does not give the authority to add additional policy violations. You are merely free to remove all of the policy violations. Sourcing is the number one thing Wikipedia is all about, so you've really got two options. Drop it until you have a reliable on it. (You never know when some odd AV Club or music website will randomly write an article on this sort of thing. If could never happen, or one could be published tomorrow and get coverage all over, you never know.) Or find a venue that doesn't require direct sourcing. (Bloging, social media, etc) There's no policy-following path to having it on Wikipedia without a proper source.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that is very helpful. When you say blogging, this would require some other third party to blog about the similarity? Or could I provide a detailed description including materials necessary to reproduce the 1:1 mashup on my own blog?

There are many claims justified by appeal to instagram. I take it all those can be deleted? Thanks again. Dster (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just something I say to lots of people who have aspirations that don't quite gel with what Wikipedia is. For instance, people often wish to give their own editorials or genre categorizations for music articles. I tell them that here, we need to stick to what sources say, but if you wish to express your own thoughts on music, there are avenues where you can write whatever you want without restriction - start a WordPress blog, and/or a Facebook/Twitter account where you talk about music and try to build a following. That sort of stuff. Sergecross73   msg me  20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

My intention was to create something that would be appropriate for Wikipedia citation on the Superorganism page as evidence of artistic borrowing. I suppose I'll keep thinking about it. Dster (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. No, you can't create your own sources and use it on Wikipedia like that, on multiple grounds. It would be both a conflict if interest and likely not meet our source guidelines. My point had been more that your options were either to find a usable source like one listed at RSMUSIC or find a medium outside of Wikipedia that doesn't require a source. Sergecross73   msg me  20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

In the time between when you laid down the law, and when you did the edit, some other knowledgeable Wikipedia big cheese changed Soundcloud to SoundCloud. What does that mean? Thanks for showing me how all this works. Dster (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * They merely changed the capitalization of the word use - they capitalized the "C". Apparently, their stance was the correct spelling is "SoundCloud" and not "Soundcloud". I can't personally claim to know if that's correct or not, but it is the current title of its own article SoundCloud at least. Sergecross73   msg me  14:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Streaming video game music article and sourcing
Hey man sorry about the wait I am not an expert when it comes to answering Wikipedia Questions hell I dont even have a user page because I dont do alot of contributions only minor ones but this is the most work I have ever done when I was on Wikipedia. Anyways to answer your question I am from Australia and also I agree we need to find sources while we add titles to the list so we will do just that! Anything to not undo all the hard work cause it be a shame for it to go all down the bin! Also Silva Gunner does have a page but is there a clear reason why we cant mention him? - Thanks NakhlaMan NakhlaMan (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate your hard work on the article. I know you're not an expert but I appreciate your efforts. We'll see what happens, but the best thing to do now is just do our best to follow policy and guidelines the best we can and hopefully persuade people against getting rid of it. If I undo any of your edits, please don't take offense, I'm just trying to do what I can to keep the article alive. Sergecross73   msg me  02:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Good sources for streaming video game soundtracks.
Hey man, finding sources is a pain but sometimes we gotta be patient but for the Sonic games its hard to find an article that specifically mentions a specific Sonic game and I dont know if this forum is a good source take a look. https://board.sonicstadium.org/topic/20294-sonic-osts-available-to-listen-on-spotify/ Let me know if its a good source. NakhlaMan (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hear you. That's why I wasn't able to keep up with you when I was trying to find all the sources myself. Thank you for using sources now though, I appreciate it.
 * So, generally speaking, message boards are going to fail WP:USERG, so you would want to stay away from that source. WP:VG/S has a big master list of sources that are generally usable or not usable on Wikipedia. It obviously doesn't cover all sources, and a source doesn't have to be on there to use it, but generally speaking, you're in good shape if you follow what it says. Sergecross73   msg me  13:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good source?
Hey man I just want to check if this source is valid or not this has alot of links for the soundtracks but also its kind of hard to find an article where they mention a specifc game is on this service. Anyways let me know if its a good source thanks.

https://gamingaudionews.com/soundtracks/

NakhlaMan (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not Serge but this just looks like a blog entry. Even if it was from a credible source, it would only pass WP:V and not WP:N and therefore still couldn't be used as a citation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while I was surprised that they do have an editorial policy, it looks like everything is run by one guy with no real credentials. I've been staying away from it. Sergecross73   msg me  19:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey
I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:

'''What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?'''

If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini! 🥪 14:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you keep doing these, . So, in my opinion, it requires at least 3 titles (if it's only 2, most info can just be place in either game article) and have some reliably sourced commentary that applies to the games collectively. Sergecross73   msg me  15:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Lists of rock deaths
Hi. I just noticed this edit, where you added a cross-reference to List of 2020s deaths in rock and roll. I just looked at this article and it really has very little to do with rock. It includes people like Vera Lynn and the Four Seasons. It's been tagged for improvement, for that very reason, and I don't think we should link to it until the issues have been sorted out. Would you mind if I removed that link? Deb (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, no problem, feel free to remove. I don't think I ever looked at it that closely. I didn't even know the article existed until I stumbled upon it while source-hunting once. Looking closer, it is pretty rough, and like a lot of these sorts of lists, probably will stay that way unless someone takes it on as a project. Otherwise it probably won't resolve itself any time soon - so may as well remove. Thanks! Sergecross73   msg me  14:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Vita lifetime sales
I'm looking for a source where the PlayStation Vita had lifetime sales of 4 million. Can you please find me one? --Jessica Dawson Replica (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Most notable sales figures and estimates are in the reception and sales section of the Vita article. To be clear, it's not that it's lifetimes sales were actually 4 million, that's just the last official sales figure released. Sony stopped reporting sales figures very early on in its lifespan, so no one realistically believe 4 million were the actually sales figures. It's why most reliable sources estimated it was around 15-17 million by the end of its lifespan. Sergecross73   msg me  02:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And hey, why did you revert my revisions? And what should I do before making those edits? --Jessica Dawson Replica (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which one you're referring to, because I undid a few of them, but I generally explained in an WP:EDITSUMMARY that can be viewed in the WP:PAGEHISTORY. Sergecross73   msg me  02:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Update on video game streaming soundtracks
Hey Serge, it's me again NakhlaMan, I'm not sure if you are keeping up to date with the article on video game streaming soundtracks but I just want to know if you are still keeping up to date because after all it was your article after all and I get that your busy but, if you could just check it out to see what I added and if there is any improvements I could do to the article, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. NakhlaMan (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Nakhlaman. Yes, I do plan on circling back it it. I tend to come and go with my projects. Currently working on another one that's been taking me forever. I've been taking a look here and there at your work, and it generally looks like you're doing a good job. Thank you for your hard work on it. Don't burn yourself out on it either though - there's no deadline to meet afterall, and I imagine others will help us over time too. Sergecross73   msg me  02:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This EP review
Hi there. Can you please give you take? Is this review contemporary or retrospective? The date on it (May 11, 2001) suggests it might retrospective. 2603:8000:E807:D900:5048:EBBB:2B80:5034 (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yeah, it's a bit hard to tell with stuff that old. Is there any reason it matters? Is there a dispute on it? Sergecross73   msg me  02:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it's hard to tell whether the review is contemporary or retrospective, some users don't think it should be included in the article as one of the contemporary reviews. But Martin IIIa keeps adding it back as a contemporary review. 2603:8000:E807:D900:D543:37FF:F9E5:1F6B (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to it? I can't see where this is happening or being discussed. Sergecross73   msg me  12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about pop singer fan account
Hi Serge. I'm very concerned about the edits of. Their entire contribution history is dedicated to Cher Lloyd and her articles, and misconstruing whatever information they can to include on them. They resort to blatant WP:OR like here, where they've invented a chart position for the wrong region of Belgium that doesn't state the number they've claimed; using a Cher Lloyd Twitter fan account with 133 followers to cite a claim for a Brazilian certification that the certifying body's website does not show, and plain old misleading labeling a Korean chart as the main Gaon Digital Chart, when it is a foreign songs-only download chart. I'm concerned that these edits will only continue going forward, considering they've been at this since at least September 2020 on this account, stuffing Cher Lloyd discography with more than 10 charts in the singles section, and repeatedly using a Cher Lloyd fan account as if it's a reliable source. I've reverted the edits I've mentioned, but it seems unlikely to stop.  Ss  112   13:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'm concerned at how many editors have voiced concerns on their talk page too. I've issued a final warning on a few of the related points. Keep me posted on it. Sergecross73   msg me
 * They've given no acknowledgement of your message on their talk page, but went straight back to adding the same WP:OR to M.I.A (Cher Lloyd song) here. Straight-up invention; they're claiming the song reached number 58 despite the fact the chart does not list numbers after 50. The chart lists another 100 songs after number 50 alphabetically; it is not numerically ordered, so the chart does not show 58 next to Cher Lloyd's entry. They've also got the wrong region of Belgium—they're claiming it's Flanders, but the song charted on the Wallonia chart. I've seen at least a dozen fan account users do exactly the same thing over the years: They see their favourite artist charted on the Belgian bubbling under charts but because the list stops at 50, they count down to where the artist is listed alphabetically and claim that is its chart position.  Ss  112   00:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Short-blocked. Sergecross73   msg me  00:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to edit our own talk pages?
Are we allowed to edit our own talk pages? That's all I need to know. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OWNTALK -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

OK and the reason of why I created all of the now-deleted fake Zelda games drafts is because since the Super Mario 3D All-Stars article was created before the game was announced, I wanted to create the articles, I had always imagined and thought the articles would look like that. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. As much as "drafts" are for article ideas that aren't ready to be published on Wikipedia, we shouldn't be making up game ideas in hopes that they're created and announced some day. On Wikipedia, you're supposed to start with the sources, and write content based on them. If a game doesn't exist and there aren't any sources on it yet, then really there's nothing to be said yet, so no draft should really exist yet. I don't know the exact situation with Mario 3D, but I do know that reliable sources reported on rumors of the tithes existence for months before it was officially announced, so they may have started a draft early. But even then I'm not entirely sure we needed a draft back then either... Sergecross73   msg me  13:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

OK and if the games are indeed announced, then someone will have to make the articles come back. 107.146.244.150 (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Query about alternate cover
Hey again. Not asking you to intervene or anything here, but just asking your opinion on whether you think this remix cover artwork is justified in including on an article in addition to the original artwork. There are a couple of Kylie Minogue fans who evidently think that we should also include the cover featuring her when I have explained that I don't think it satisfies the WP:NFCC criteria as being substantially different from the original, using non-free media sparingly, or something that can't be sufficiently explained in the prose (that Minogue is credited as a co-lead artist on a remix of the track).  Ss  112   19:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also be interested in your opinion. It's been brought up for discussion on the singles' talk page, specifically addressing alternative covers. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Image use policy is probably my weakest area of policy knowledge. I can generally make a call on more obvious violations, but I'm probably not the best person to ask on matters like this. If I absolutely had to make a call on it, I'd probably lean towards not using it, just because the image policy is rather strict, generally speaking, and the image is redundant in a number of ways. Sergecross73   msg me  02:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Does it strike you as odd at all though that an article for With the Beatles has three covers? Our conversation is about an album reflecting a totally different artist being added to a song and re-released, yet that's not different enough? It strikes me as odd. Shoestringnomad (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't particularly think that's okay either, honestly. But I'm not entirely sure how well the alternate covers type stuff is enforced either. You might have just found another violation. FYI, when finding examples of precedent, it's best to try to find examples where the issue was discussed and an agreement was has on it. It'd be more persuasive if you had examples of times where discussions lead to allowing multiple covers. Otherwise, you're likely to find WP:OSE thrown back at you. (Just a tip from someone who "doesn't have a horse on this race" really.) Sergecross73   msg me  03:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, I already asked this user to not edit war and I thought they understood BRD, but I'm not sure they do. I'm sure they will see I've commented here again (as they found it in the first place from obviously looking at my contributions), but they have again reinstated the image based on one other user's suggestion that perhaps it would be best to just nominate the file for deletion instead of discussing  (which there is no requirement to do). As far as I'm concerned, they'll achieve the same thing. Shoestringnomad has not achieved consensus to reinstate this image yet, and only two other users have commented, neither of whom agrees with them, but they just apparently can't let it go. Can you perhaps ask Shoestringnomad to not edit war to include this image? Thanks.  Ss   112   07:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Are you not understanding WP:BRD? Do I need to make it so no one can edit the article for the next few days while this is hashed out? Sergecross73   msg me  16:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm a simp. I'm not touching the page. Shoestringnomad (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Static X
Hello,

I tried to reply to your e mail, not sure if it worked.

This is not about white washing Tripp Eisen from the history of Static-X.

This is about being TRUTHFUL about the making of the Static-X album Project Regeneration Vol 1. A tremendous amount of work went into the making of the album and Mr. Salvador AKA Tripp Eisen was not involved in the least bit...  Further, he has done nothing but attempt to smear the hard work of others out of jealousy and resentment for being EXCLUDED... He had nothing to do with the making of the album and there is no evidence to support his self serving claims...

Respectfully. Why do you feel that it is appropriate to allow someone to paint a totally false narrative over the trusted medium of Wikipedia?

There is NO TRUTH to his claims. If there were ANY proof, there would be a lawsuit and a record of a legal challenge for copyright infringement etc.

None of that exists, because his claims are nothing more than a ploy to attach himself the the success of a band that he was kicked out of more than 15 years ago. The band has been very quiet about this subject, because they do not want to give him any attention. Attention is exactly what he seeks...

In addition, You continue to change back false info within the legal credits to match Mr Salvadors “claims”. He was credited appropriately for the 3 songs that he loosely contributed ideas to back in 2003.... He does not appear on the album and he was not a "PARTICIPANT". The credits are a mater of factual record and should be listed as such.

I just want the Wiki to be truthful, rather than based on made up drama, deliberately created to promote an individual who ruined his own career and is now desperately trying to gain a current association by misrepresenting the truth..

You are incorrectly accusing me of attempting to write my own narrative, which is precisely what you are defending and allowing Mr Eisen to do by supporting his unsubstantiated, self serving claims.

Sincerely.

Static-X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otsego Band Managment (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Promotional hard block for username dropped. Dropped one on Static-Xofficial as well, very ducky sockpuppetry looks like regardless. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

User repeatedly adds unsourced chart positions
Hi Serge. I reported the user to ANV yesterday, but alas, they're not an obvious vandal, so nothing was done about them. But for months they've been repeatedly adding unsourced chart positions to hip hop artists' articles. If I see an unsourced chart position on a hip hop artist's article, it's usually the work of this editor. They've been warned enough this month alone—User talk:ThesePicklesLoveSosa (where only two out of six warnings are mine)—but even still, were adding more yesterday, and and again, not even two hours ago. They've never responded to any messages, but earlier, left a message on my talk page asking how to add "bulletpoint peaks"—their first ever correspondence AFAIK—when this isn't even the main issue with their edits. They know how to source other information like songs being singles and certifications, but apparently not chart positions. I'm at a loss as to what to do here after multiple warnings and reverts over the last two months.  Ss  112   18:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, a different editor who micromanages Coldplay discography and reclassifies singles as promotional on their own is displaying a particularly vicious attitude to another on the band's main article here, telling another editor to "f*** off" (their censorship, not mine) and here.  Ss  112   18:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, that the editor has been blocked for 24 hours. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't gotten to this, got busy with some other disputes, but SosaPickle is blocked by someone else, and I'll keep an eye on him for a bit too. Sergecross73   msg me  13:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * And the other guy - while his comment is a bit extreme, I do give him a bit more leniency since it was towards a vandalism-only account that kept adding Tony Hawk as a member of Coldplay. While I think my reaction would be more of an eye roll, I'm sure I would have been unamused if someone was doing that to a band I actively maintain too. If it's a recurring thing with good-faith editors, then it would be a problem though. Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Read carefully
I have proof that this guy did "sockppupet" and therefore I presented the proof that a chekuser got him banned. It is no slander, pay more attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FreezingHotSavedMyLife

How was the account returned to that user? it's very strange right?
 * Feel free to ask the blocking admin about that situation if you have questions. I don't know that particular situation, but generally speaking, sometimes - order and context matters. And editor that is otherwise in good standing, but gets caught with multiple accounts, gets all the other accounts blocked permanently, and may get a warning or temporary block, but may still be allowed to keep editing under their main account. But an editor who was already blocked for misconduct generally gets all of their accounts blocked, because they were causing other issues first.


 * Regardless of the situation, mass-spamming all those editors talk page is not the way to handle it. If you do that anymore, your account will receive a short block. Sergecross73   msg me  18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sonic Rangers
Hi, Serge. I have no big issue with delaying an article until more information about the game is announced (though I do think it does readers a slight disservice by removing a notable topic that we do have enough information to create a stub about). However, you noted in your edit summary: "there's already a draft in better shape being developed." I was wondering where I could find this draft so I could ask its creator about contributing to it as information comes out about the game, as I'll be keeping up with the news as well. Cheers.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  00:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. It's at Draft:Sonic Rangers. It's mostly been maintained by User:TheJoebro64. Sergecross73   msg me  00:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

COI
Hi Serge, apparently you know a lot about popular music (I lump everything non-classical into one huge umbrella). I know almost nothing. I'm dealing with a user who owns websites that involve popular music, which, at least in part, write reviews on songs, albums, etc. He has recently started editing, and his edits have all been to add his reviews to various articles. I look at this as spam and warned him accordingly. Since then, he and I have been discussing what he can and can't do (he's a bit full of himself, btw). At this point, I feel like I need another admin's eyes as I don't like dictating unilaterally what he must do in these circumstances. If you are willing to help, please look at the discussion at User talk:Feyyazustaer. If not, maybe you could direct me somewhere else? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no problem, I'm happy to help any time. I've left a note (your stance has been correct) and I'll keep an eye on it. Sergecross73   msg me  21:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

User edit warring on article they're micromanaging
Hey Serge. I've just noticed has made more than three non-vandalism reverts on, and the extent to which they're micromanaging and all-caps ranting at experienced editors in the edit summaries on Butter (song). It's really something else. I understand the frustration over users editing articles while an "in use" is tag there, but this looks like WP:OWN and a blatant disregard of 3RR to me. I've told them to calm down but in the time I left them my first talk page message, they've already reverted another editor twice for daring to edit while an in use tag is there.  Ss  112   17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * if I was supposed to reply to/acknowledge Ss112's msgs before completing my edit(s), it simply was not possible at the time. Just in case the impression is that I purposely ignored him, for clarity's sake, I received multiple email notifs while editing but was only able to check them after saving and then reply. I didn't even see notifs for the conflicting edits made while I was editing, and only knew they happened because of the error msg that appeared when I went to save mine. I already politely replied to him on my talk page (but I don't think he'll respond), and hopefully cleared the air on everything else. Re: my "all-caps ranting at experienced users" - I used caps in parts of 2 edit summaries, to 2 editors. My first use of caps was here to A2013a (editor w just over 300 edits), plainly clarifying that in use tag means something is being edited already. My other use of caps in part of an edit summary was here to BawinV (who has 1000+ edits over me so the "experienced editor" descriptor is valid in that case) where I said again that I was actively editing the page in the hopes that he would see it, but I also asked him in the next sentence wo the use of caps to please not edit while my tag was still there. None of my other summaries were me ranting at anyone in caps so I don't appreciate the exaggeration of what I said. I had to go back and reread all my summaries to make sure I really didn't all caps every single thing and just couldn't remember, because that is the impression Ss112's comment gives off. I acknowledged my being at fault with the multiple reverts but I don't appreciate the other things said about me, especially the micromanagement accusation (which I already mentioned in my talk page reply). I just wanted to provide these clarifications after seeing the above. A good evening to you both. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's no big deal. The only fault I see is that your edits were getting a bit close to OWN/UNCIVIL territory. I just wanted to chime in that I could see Ss112's concerns in that area. I said something because sometimes people don't always give full consideration to the warnings they receive from people they're actively arguing with. I imagine you just got caught up in the moment because of that song hitting it big. I mostly work on music that's not nearly as popular, so I can only imagine how I'd feel if a musician I liked achieved that. So I imagine it wasn't a typical scenario, and as such, not a typical reaction. So I imagine it'll be easy to avoid in the future.  Sergecross73   msg me  19:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * honestly, it was just the persistent conflicting edits, esp from an editor who should have known what the tag meant too, that pushed me a bit further than how I'd normally react. I decided to just not edit that page anymore for peace of mind. As much I've enjoyed expanding it, this situation made me really uncomfortable/anxious, and Ss112's msgs made me start questioning everything I do on here. But thank you for being kind enough to listen. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may offer drive-by advice, I've never seen a situation where the "in use" template was necessary, and can't really imagine a valid justification for shushing the whole rest of the world instead of just serenely making a private sandbox document and merging it. That also eliminates the problem of spamming lots of edits. I've seen the template about "current events" like with a news event or trade show, but otherwise, I'd always recommend a sandbox. That's a huge reducer of anxiety, confusion, and conflict. Just FYI. Anyway, we shake it off as we learn, and good luck to you. — Smuckola(talk) 02:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus was reached to deprecate Editor assistance.
 * Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration
 * After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

About You
I just looked at your profile and saw your contribution to Wikipedia and it's pretty admirable, especially the contents about rock and metal music. After that, I have a curiosity about you that are you paid employee of Wikipedia or a volunteer? Feyyazustaer (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am not paid by Wikipedia or anyone else when I'm editing Wikipedia. I don't work in the music industry, just follow it closely. Sergecross73   msg me  22:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow... Respect. Feyyazustaer (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Serge is that good. It is known. Keenly observed. :) — Smuckola(talk) 02:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. Sergecross73   msg me  01:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope draft
Per your message on Talk:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope, I've got a draft going for placement on Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope, at Draft:Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. If you believe it to be sufficiently detailed at this time, perhaps it could be published on that page Mitchy Power (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's much better. I'm not sure "Vital Thrills" is a reliable source, but the rest are. I'll remove the protection. Thanks for doing that. Sergecross73   msg me  21:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed source and substituted with a reliable existing one. Also, as an administrator, are you able to complete the move from the draft over to the current page Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope? I am having some difficulty seeing as the target name is already in use with the redirect Mitchy Power (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Sergecross73   msg me  03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Editor doesn't seem to want to attribute text taken from sources
Hi Serge. The editor works on mostly K-pop articles every now and again, and routinely fails to attribute text they have taken from sources. Instead, we end up with promotional-sounding, often nonsensical text with zero attribution and such lines as "The singer's mature vocals express her desire to approach her little by little with courage" and "Lyrics comfort with a pure confession that you will always be by your side when you need it". I warned MotherofSnakes doing this just over a month ago, and they're still at it. I've told them this is a WP:COPYVIO problem and I'm afraid it will continue.  Ss  112   04:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been tight on time lately, but I'll try to have a talk with them soon. Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks
Would you mind stopping in over at Talk:Shem HaMephorash, if only just to oppose me in my poll there... Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Come on man, this really petty. I agree from what I saw elsewhere; WP:CANVASING isn't good. I'm happy to help others, but not when it's driven by agenda or vendetta. -- Tautomers (T C) 23:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Trialpears
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
 * An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news
 * IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration
 * The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)