User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 83

Crying with delight
It's just come through. Cry On is officially a GA! Thanks for the advice and encouragement. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you really did amazing work on that one! That's really my favorite sort of article too - I highly doubt it would have ever been much more than start class without your extensive efforts. I had faith in you, but you still exceeded my expectations on what could be done with the article. Thank you for your work on it! Sergecross73   msg me  14:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you think of any reason...
Hey Serge. Just asking you as an uninvolved editor who is interested in music: Can you think of any reason why we would need to wait until it is midnight in an artist's home country before we can edit their article to say a project (album, single or so on) has been released? I was reverted based on this (the editor even said they have no other reason than WP:NOHURRY), and it's odd because basically only a couple of editors have ever reverted me or another editor over something like this. Most don't seem to care so I can't imagine there's any sort of widespread issue over it. In my eyes, this would be like saying that it doesn't matter if an album was released exclusively in a country like Japan a week before the rest of the world, we need to wait until it's out where the artist resides before saying it has been released, which is ludicrous and part of the reason why I assume there is no guideline or policy about it.  Ss  112   16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hogwash. If the album is out, anywhere, then the article can be updated. Whether it's out in the artist's native home country is irrelevant. -- ferret (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferret, I agree too. The editor who reverted me here then compared the album (on the talk page of IJBall) not being out to different air dates for TV show episodes in different countries because there's apparently a precedent to only use American air dates for episodes of American TV shows in episode wikitables and to relegate any earlier airings of said episodes in other countries to footnotes. I don't see why we'd be following what the TV side of Wikipedia does for music, but that was apparently the logic.  Ss  112   17:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Infobox video game runs a convention of only listing English region release dates or the regions the developer is from... I.e. we omit Japan unless the developer is Japanese. But that's just for the info box, and sourceable dates for other areas can be in the prose. I can't really imagine a case where a game would be out in Japan significantly earlier than other regions and *not* be developed by Japanese developer, but if such a case happened, we'd probably still list the earliest release cause it simply makes sense. -- ferret (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I've never heard of such a stance, either formally or even informally. In my experience, most people handle it like you do - as soon as it's released in any time zone, it's changes to "released". I dont fight it on any of the article I maintain. Sergecross73   msg me  18:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't get through to this Internet tough guy editor
Hey Serge. Earlier, I reverted across a dozen or so articles after finding they've been adding unsourced genres and changing sourced genres since the start of this year. Out of their 475 edits, over a third of them have been reverted (based on those tagged "Reverted" on their contributions page). I told them to stop with the unsourced genres and unexplained wording changes, and now they've slapped on the teenager Internet tough guy persona, calling me a "bitch" (lol) and repeating that I need to "mind my business" (and presumably let them continue to go on their merry way adding whatever they like to the website). The back-and-forth has ceased to be even mildly amusing and it just looks like I'm not getting through to them at all. Their talk page alone is a collection of enough warnings from January to now from 10 or so editors that I would think is enough reason for a block, as they have not stopped adding unsourced genres and their own commentary to all manner of articles.  Ss  112   05:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else already slapped them with a 3 day block. Let me know if he returns and have any more issues with unsourced edits or personal attacks, and I'll re-block - their behavior is unacceptable. Sergecross73   msg me  14:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Another disruptive editing and possible sockpuppet
Hello Sergecross73. Recently, on these pages of the years of heavy metal music that we are watching over has been edited with disruptive edits. I think the problem is back again. I strongly believe that this user is a sockpuppet because he is using multiple IP adresses to edit. Yes, some of the edits might be with sources, but he is just adding things that should not be on these articles. Can you perhaps somehow put the protections on the pages permanently please? Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It really helps if you give examples of the pages and/or users. -- ferret (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as ferret says, it's a lot easier if you link me to the specific articles you're talking about. And the page protecting policy says I'm really not supposed to be jumping straight to permanent protection. But if the problem persists, I can continue to add increasingly long protections until it becomes permanent, if need be. Sergecross73   msg me  22:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant by these pages: 2015 in heavy metal music from this year to 2020 in heavy metal music. Once again, he is using inapropriate language to communitcate. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, he should not be calling you names, but looking through the page histories, it shows them trying to add content with sources, you reverting them without explanation, and them literally asking why you're reverting them. Are you having talk with page conversations with them somewhere? If not, then you really shouldn't be undoing their sourced edits without explanation. Sergecross73   msg me  14:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, he did what he suppose to, but the main problem here is that he is adding things that does not belong to the page, most of the things he added are related to rock music, not heavy metal. As far as I know, there is a reason why these things are separated. For example, he keeps ignoring and adding Malcolm Young's death to the page of 2017 in heavy metal music when there is clearly a note that you are not suppose to add because he is not a heavy metal musician. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to be discussing things with them, not reverting them without even an edit summary. Start discussions on talk pages and hash it out. I'm also curious as to what kind of consensus you have in your favor about the AC/DC aspect. AC/DC currently lists them as "heavy metal", and I dont particularly think that's a controversial stance. (They're nothing like, for example modern metal like Slipknot, but they fit the description of how metal was classified in the 70s and 80s. That Led Zepellin type metal. So that's probably not a great stance to take on the metal list article.)  Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Repeated copyright issues with editor
Hi Serge. Looks like you've had Tim96144 quite a few times here recently. You might be unaware, but Tim96144 creates articles for singles quite regularly, and to be quite blunt, I'm assuming because he has a poor grasp of English being Taiwanese, relies quite heavily on sources to the point that he repeatedly does not specify with quotation marks what is directly a quote. This has been going on for months. I've silently fixed the problem for most of the time, but now, even warning Tim on his talk page (six days ago) warranted no response, and the plagiarism has continued unabated with his creation of Chain My Heart (which I have rephrased and inserted quotation marks on), then I discover there's also Beers on Me and Love Runs Out (Martin Garrix song) and those are just in the last couple of days. I see sentences directly copied from the cited sources on those articles. What is not a quote is usually worded with poor grammar or seems to be a poor attempt at paraphrasing that usually ends up pilfering the source regardless. God knows how much plagiarism would be unearthed if Tim96144's contributions were put through a copyright-violation detection tool. I don't know what you want to do about this but this is serious, widespread for all of the articles this user has created, ongoing, and looks unlikely to stop. I'm sure he will notice this message to you and have something to say about it.  Ss  112   19:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I recognize my grammar as not good as you, I also know I'm not a native English speaker, because Taiwan's education of English writing is not good enough, but it doesn't represent we could't created English Wikipedia page. As a native Chinese speaker, You should tolerance those people who not native English speaker, Instead of accusing they have problems with grammar. Tim96144 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , as for problem of copyright, if you or others know what service or website of article plagiarism detection for English, please tell me, next time will pay attention, thanks. Tim96144 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are creating articles on the English Wikipedia. Editors generally expect that if you are doing so, you should have a good grasp of grammar and an ability to paraphrase. I'm not "accusing" you of having problems with grammar; you do. Editors should not be expected to have rewrite articles for you because you insist on creating articles when you are at the level of English comprehension that you are. Occasional mistakes are fine and "tolerated" but not when they define all of what you do, and not when you resort to copyright infringement, wholesale copying sentences without attributing that they're quotes from sources, if you can't write the majority of it yourself. Regardless, focusing on your grammar is taking attention away from the more important transgression, and that is your frequent problems with copying without attribution from websites.  Ss  112   03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

, Ss112 is correct, WP:COPYVIO stuff is very serious and not acceptable on Wikipedia. The occasional typo or error is forgivable - no one is perfect - but repeated copyright issues are repeated serious errors - we simply cannot tolerate copyright issues. If you dont have the ability to fix this, then you are not ready to be writing content on Wikipedia, let alone writing articles from scratch. You need to stop adding content immediately, until you fully understand the message of WP:PARAPHRASE. If you make any more copyright violations, your account will be blocked, with the unblock condition that you can only create articles if you get them approved through WP:AFC. Sergecross73  msg me  14:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Next time I will use plagiarism tools to check before create articles, just a moment ago I have modified parts of plagiarisms at Love Runs Out (Martin Garrix song) through plagiarism check tools, later Beers on Me will modified, too. Sorry for your remind. Tim96144 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Serge, I hate to start sounding like the boy who cried wolf here, but earlier today Tim again created an article, To Be Loved by You (Parker McCollum song) that had, before I edited it, three sections with sentences copied directly from sources without denoting they were in fact quotes. He cannot paraphrase and it doesn't look like he's going to, nor does it look he's going to stop creating articles copying directly from websites. The other day, it seems he made Love Me Now (Kygo song) and attempted to paraphrase a quote from a writer at Your EDM but only switched out two words ("return" with "regress" and "stale" with "obsolete"), with no quotation marks for the rest of the sentence copied verbatim. He didn't add a source for the website he basically directly copied this from until seven hours later.  Ss  112   14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't give others trouble, I said, I use plagiarism tools to check last week, I also have tried to avoid copying directly from websites, why you like to make others trouble?? Please withdraw your opinionated attitude, and remenber the talk: "You should tolerance those people who not native English speaker, Instead of accusing they have problems with grammar or copy". Later, I will create more and more music articles for everyone who whats to understand, so don't pick fault, thank you. If you want to catch the error for articles, keeping a low profile, I don't want to appear your criticize talk about me.Tim96144 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tolerating those who are not native English speakers is different from tolerating those who regularly copy whole fragments of sources despite numerous warnings to not do so. It's not a language barrier issue if you simply refuse to change your behavior. I don't know what you intend with the defense of "I use plagiarism tools", when you're the one plagiarizing. If you copy content from another site, it's plagiarism and a copyright violation. You don't need a tool to tell you this, you're the one doing the copy and pasting. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Tim, you were told that if you make any more copyright violations, your account will be blocked. You've made two more articles, with each having copyright violations for not attributing what is a quote and what is not. You've been at this for months and enough is enough. I will not be withdrawing what I said, because it's not an opinion nor an "opinionated attitude" (whatever that means) when To Be Loved by You (Parker McCollum song) had three sections you copied whole sentences from without denoting them as quotes. That is fact. I doubt you even know what a "plagiarism tool" is, let alone have used one. Plagiarism detection tools and websites are for people who do not know what sources others have copied from. Why would you need to use said tool when you know what websites you've copy-pasted whole lines from, because they're the citations you've used? That makes no sense. I am done trying to decipher what else you have said. This is why I do not speak directly to you on your talk page anymore.  Ss  112   14:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I invite you create a new article about a new music single, tell me how to create a perfect article. If you don't want to do, I will continue create articles that I interested.
 * Anyway article has error, users can edit it to complete, isn't Wikipedia purpose?? I don't care how many I create articles, if only everyone can understand the mean, remaining things are responsible for editors. Ok?? Tim96144 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how to use "quote". Tim96144 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, I've created several articles, and taken a couple to GA, and helped others reach FA. I somehow avoided ever creating a copyright violation. It's not hard. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, originally you are also a administrator, I don't bother you. Tim96144 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're bothering me right now, because you're causing disruption for other editors who follow the guidelines and policies of the site. Just above you have essentially stated that no matter what warnings you're given, you aren't going to stop doing this. So can you explain why I shouldn't go ahead and issue an indefinite copyright violation block? -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You, too. Please create a new article about a new music single, tell me how to create a perfect article, and let me convinced.
 * I said, anyway article has error, other users can edit it to complete and avoid copyright problem, isn't Wikipedia purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim96144 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations aren't a "other editors can just fix it" problem. It requires administrative action and deleting the revision text depending on the severity, because it carries *legal risk* for the site. If you won't stop, you'll be blocked. Are you going to stop? -- ferret (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Umm... Ok, I stop it. In order to avoid my edit right was deprive, will reduce frequency of create articles until understand copyright for law. Tim96144 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I trust you are nice to me, if I Piracy, and was accuse by copyright owner, it's not easy to talk with you. Tim96144 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You can stop pinging me, I have pings turned off. You just said you will reduce the number of articles you create, implying you will still create articles...it's like you haven't understood a single thing said to you. Now you're just trying to bargain and minimise your way out of this. I guarantee you will still create articles pilfering from sources when you think nobody's looking at your edits anymore. You are a timesink. I would have blocked you already if I were an administrator. I'll leave it to Ferret and Sergecross.  Ss  112   16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now Ss112 don't trust me, Ok, I promise to god, won't create new articles for two weeks, until September 15, 2021, if I done, Ss112, please let me create more and more articles, ok?? Tim96144 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Just happened across the article for Purple Hat as I was going through electronic music artists' songs.... previously revdeled the original version of the article, created by Tim, for copying straight from two websites in January of this year: .  Ss  112   18:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the editor here. Please continue to report issues like this to me. Thanks. Sergecross73   msg me  22:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, if you can believe it...there's reason to believe Tim96144 is evading their block using 223.141.191.39, a Taiwan-based IP updating chart peaks on country song articles Tim himself expanded into articles. I've gotten used to knowing every week around 12 UTC Tim96144 usually appears online to update Billboards Country Airplay chart peaks and whatever else of the US charts that is available that hasn't been done yet. That's exactly what this IP has done, and it really looks like Tim couldn't resist or wait out his block. As I've gotten used to knowing where block evading editors live in the world, I've gotten in the habit of using IP locators to see where IPs locate to that have edited topics repeatedly, and in basically all my time editing I have never come across another Taiwan-based editor who was interested in updating US chart peaks besides Tim96144. In addition to the IP editor doing something Tim has done every week for a year at this point, and editing articles Tim himself started, I don't think I need to call for a CU to know it's him. Quite unbelievable that he'd be this obvious, especially considering no other editor has edited the article he plagiarised on, To Be Loved by You (Parker McCollum song), besides him and myself.  Ss  112  ' 00:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable, but agreed that he gave himself away. Block extended. Torn on what to do with that article. COPYVIOs should be deleted, and even if the article is nothing but a WP:QUOTEFARM, then it should probably be redirected. Unless you or anyone else plans on fixing it, then I won't intervene. Sergecross73   msg me  01:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, this To Be Loved by You (Parker McCollum song) article seems to be a magnet for editors editing while logged out. The country music editor, who doesn't appear to like to interact with others all that much on Wikipedia given their lack of responses to talk page threads and lack of edit summaries, has now edited it using Special:Contributions/2603:8000:1744:A300:9C32:EB61:CED0:F8F7 to restore an edit I reverted (as it was unnecessary). The reason I know it's David829 editing while logged out is the fact that they have removed my message from User talk:David829 here, as they previously did when I asked them not to do something against the MOS last month. This editor's been on Wikipedia since 2008, and I've told them they should know this tandem editing/restoring a reverted edit while logged out isn't allowed. Looks like they've been using the range Special:Contributions/2603:8000:1744:A300:B06A:7B14:D4B1:83/40 since December last year, as there's a string of edits to country articles stretching back to then, so obviously David likes editing while logged out.  Ss   112   22:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

EPs being grouped as part of albums
Random question: Would you consider it appropriate to group EPs/extended plays beneath an "Albums" heading? I've always removed EPs from these based on the fact that EPs are traditionally considered to be between the length of a single and an album. While I get "EP album" is a term that has been used in the past, and in most cases, EPs are placed on artists' album discography pages when these are separated from a whole discography, as well as the fact that EPs can be used in albums categories (when an equivalent EP category does not exist/would not be worth creating), I do hesitate to conflate the two elsewhere, like referring to an EP throughout its article prose as an "album" or grouping it under albums as a subheading. What do you think?  Ss  112   02:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I answer, can you link to me some examples? I'm only like 80% sure I'm understanding what you mean, and I'm afraid that if I'm not following, then my answer is going to be confusing. Sergecross73   msg me  12:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, on Nickelback discography, the extended plays section is not a subheading of albums. That's what I mean by I've removed these sections from being a subheading of albums. (If you mean examples of the other things I mentioned, for example, several EPs are listed in Category:Surprise albums and similar cats when they do not have their own/may not warrant their own separate cats.)  Ss  112   20:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I don't really have a strong stance on it - to me, it's one of those things where I simply pick a way of doing it, and if an experienced editor (like yourself) changes it, I just go with it. I think I generally treat albums and EPs as separate things though. The only related thing I feel strongly about is keeping EPs out of the discography sections when bands have a separate discography article. Which is generally pretty uniformly followed, except for at Nine Inch Nails, which has a local consensus that I've lost multiple times in discussions, so I've just dropped it. Sergecross73   msg me  16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jake Wartenberg
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Emperor • Viridian Bovary
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
 * A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
 * A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
 * A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news
 * The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration
 * A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous
 * The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

*"Sweden" begins to suddenly fade in*
Hey Serge! I see you did a lot of page protection today. Sounds like... fun?...

Might I question why you chose to not thank my rewrite of Odyssey's development section and instead the two sentences about Minecraft? Panini! 🥪 15:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry about that. One actually explains the other really - because I spent all my wiki-time cleaning up after than music-vandal clown, I didn't actually see your rewrite, and only saw the Minecraft note you added, as it was the only part I noticed on my Watchlist. Let me read the rest of your rewrite and then I'll comment more. Sergecross73   msg me  17:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you just thank me for it again? XD Panini! 🥪 14:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol, did I? I don't think I meant to, if I did. But I did read over the full scope of your rewrite, and it looks good, you did good work! Sergecross73   msg me  15:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for checking! I appreciate it. Panini! 🥪 16:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Inappropriate talk"?
I seriously have no idea what you were talking about with the Disney fairies thing. Could you please elaborate? Booger-mike (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit right here, the only one you've ever made on the page. It was from from over a year ago, but so was my warning about it. You're literally a year late on responding to this. Sergecross73   msg me  15:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor still changing genres years after first warning
Hi Serge. I've just left a new talk page message for asking them to stop changing genres unless they have a source, but as I was nearing the end of my message, I looked through their talk page history and saw I've asked them to stop doing this as far back as 2017. This is my first message to them where they changed a genre that they claimed was unsourced, and for example, over the next few months, I also left a reply to ask them to stop saying "general edit" where they've changed genres, and another warning to stop changing genres in March 2018. Lately they've been changing subgenres of electronic music to just "electronic music", even in instances where the article has a sourced review from a critic calling it, for example, "electronica", which is an issue. What I find funny is they're also out warning other users for changing genres or adding unsourced genres while essentially doing it themselves.  Ss  112   05:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've left them a warning, as they seemed to completely miss the point of your warning. Keep me posted on what you see. I don't want to do anything than that yet, as they don't seem to be that prolific, but as you say, it is concerning that they've been editing so long and not aware of how to source music genre... Sergecross73   msg me  17:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Persona
None of the Persona games ever had the "Shin Megami Tensei" in their titles in the original Japanese, they were only branded as "Shin Megami Tensei" in Western territories for the sake of branding. The first Persona game is specifically "Megami Genei Ibunroku: Persona", and the rest are simply titled Persona and a number from then on, with a suffix or two here and there. This goes for the majority of spinoffs with in the franchise, they were either given the "Shin Megami Tensei" branding when they didn't have it originally (or Revelations, going further back), or changed the title entirely. Soul Hackers is just "Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers", Devil Survivor is just called "Megami Ibunroku: Devil Survivor", and Digital Devil Saga is just "Digital Devil Saga: Avatar Tuner". The "SMT" was only added to them. The first Devil Summoner game was "Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner", and from then on it became it's own thing as was just referred to as "Devil Summoner". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:D512:7D00:D819:DA4B:69D1:F5EF (talk • contribs)
 * What is this even in reference to? I don't think I've made any Persona/SMT edits in like ages. Sergecross73   msg me  18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User uploading alternate single covers to replace standard ones
Hi Serge. I have asked the editor, whose sole focus on Wikipedia is R&B artists' articles, to not replace single (or album) covers with alternate versions that are not the most widely distributed or well-known versions of those covers. My recent thread on their talk page (User talk:Noboyo) is not the first time I've asked them to not do this. Instead, they've maintained a defiant attitude, and on their 500+ thread never-cleared monstrosity of a talk page, have chosen to only reply to my thread with obliviousness and taking one sentence out of my (at the time) two messages to somehow claim I'm "not speaking for [my]self". Their only apparent reason for replacing the cover was they own the single and that's the cover of their version. I have provided them with a Discogs link showing that (and one can clearly Google and see) most versions of the single in question were the original cover that Noboyo then replaced with a close-up shot. While I assured them my informing an admin was not a threat but rather a promise and would only do so if they continued, it's not leaving me with a good impression going forward that they will stop. If you agree this is an issue and feel it'll add anything, would you be able to chime in? Maybe it's trivial and making a mountain out of a molehill, but seeing this editor around and then having found more than once they're pointlessly replacing things like this is getting frustrating.  Ss  112   09:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong...but neither are they. They could be a bit more careful with their image uploads, but you're coming in a bit hot too if that your first talk page discussion with them on it. I fear me intervening would just escalate things further. Let me know if they continue to make bad calls and I can re-evaluate on whether or not I should intervene. Sergecross73   msg me  19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Blablubbs
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alvestrand • Black Falcon • Deathphoenix • Dppowell • Mark Arsten • JGHowes (deceased)



Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Callanecc
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Mkdw

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Galobtter

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, extended confirmed protection may be used preemptively on certain high-risk templates.
 * Following a discussion at the Village Pump, there is consensus to treat discord logs the same as IRC logs. This means that discord logs will be oversighted if posted onwiki.

Technical news
 * DiscussionTools has superseded Enterprisey's reply-link script. Editors may switch using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under.

Arbitration
 * A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
 * Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
 * The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous
 * Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
 * The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Asking Alexandria
Hello, Sergecross. I need help from you once again. Recently, there is an IP user who keeps delete references and singles from each album. Can you check it please? Thanks. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can look into it, but can you provide a WP:DIF so I don't have to search through their lengthy discography, guessing at what you're referring to? Sergecross73   msg me  12:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant, the whole discography. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that they have a large discography, and likely many IP editors across them. I'm not sure why you have a reluctance to provide a link? Just see WP:DIF or just copy/paste a website link really. Sergecross73   msg me  13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. Here is one of the example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Like_a_House_on_Fire&diff=prev&oldid=1048294658 --Tobi999tomas (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't take any action. This just looks like a simple content dispute. And if anything, the IP is at least leaving edit summaries explaining their edits, unlike yourself. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but their edits appear to be in good faith at least. You need to at least attempt to discuss with them on talk pages. And you should generally use edit summaries a lot more often too. Sergecross73   msg me  13:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He did explained it, but did not bring up any reliable source to support his edits. Everything that I reverted back was true information and it also have reliable sources to support it. All he did is just removing it without any addition to it. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverting him without explanation is not the correct response. Unless it's purely bad-faith WP:VANDALISM, blocks and page protection happen when discussions and warnings fail to get the job done. You haven't started with either. Sergecross73   msg me  17:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. I will try to do what you advised and also I will try to talk to him, even though it's kinda pointless, because he is one those who uses different IPs whenever he wants. He already did the same thing with the previous IP that was there. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Westlife sockpuppet
Hey Serge. I've just found the editor, who is a sockpuppet of the user Myxxd, who was blocked for disruptive (namely persistent addition of unsourced content) by Ad Orientem at the end of 2019. Myxxd registered in 2008 and exclusively edited Westlife topics for 11 years, bloating a lot of their articles out to ridiculous lengths with reams of unsourced and assorted fancruft. Westliferforever appears to have registered early this year when Westlife were back doing something again. Both accounts also have over half their edits tagged as mobile edits. Starlight (Westlife song) alone to me proves Westliferforever is Myxxd, because they've somehow managed to write the same run-on paragraph style Myxxd inflated Westlife with, based on only one citation on the article (to a band member's Instagram page, no less).  Ss  112   11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Socking looks likely due to the writing style, lack of communication, and lack of sources. The latter is worth a block even if he's not a sock. Sergecross73   msg me  13:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi there again
User:Sergecross73 and User:Ss112 Okay, so I wanted to say something. The user I was having conflict with isn't willing to reply. I admit I messed up time to time while editing, and not just time to time, many time to be precise but now I have seem to understand the rules like Manual of Style et cetera. I made major edits to many albums recently and I followed all the rules, should it be enough to let you know I'll never ever create a conflict again? Instead search its manual on Wikipedia, like if I wanna edit a track listing I'll go read Template:Track listing and then edit and this for every case. If I happen to have any doubt or willing to change something I'm not sure of I could ask for your advice? or maybe some other editor? and I won't edit until I'm dead sure and serious? Listen, I know my this above statement won't be just enough but I mean it this time. I utterly mean it. I just hope you could forgive me, that's all! Umm have a good day and stay safe! HimuTheEditor (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding my new major edit on a soundtrack album
While the previous discussion goes, I wanted to ask something. I recently added the whole soundtrack album information here VIOLET EVERGARDEN: Automemories, I read the Manual of style again and again, and I did my best to avoid any errors, but just in case I did and later you disrespect me, please look into it once and let me know if there's some mistake. HimuTheEditor (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure with all the standards related to adding soundtracks to light novel articles, but I have no personal objections with the edit here. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see but did you see my messages above? if yes could you tell me what should I do now? I'm not editing the track listing of Chaos and the Calm anymore as it would probably invite Ss112's disargument and more importantly the article's good right now with no mistakes I see. HimuTheEditor (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help regarding my edits
I would like to add your attention to the case admin. You see the reason he is accusing me is not valid. please see for yourself and tell me if I'm wrong. [|this]. After our last talk, I made somewhat 10 changes to Chaos and the Calm in 3-4 edits, clearly user:Ss112, didn't agree with 2 of them and blindly avoided other 8, come on. Now if you have seen this [|this], you can clearly see my edit is valid. Ss112 says to write in the way he likes, but when i edited i gave exactly link to the Wikipedia's manual justifying my edit. Ss112, I'm losing my temper here, you are just now trying to stop me from editing for something I didn't repeat. and the way you disrespected me for my 3-4 edits, for your knowledge in those edits I removed ref to applemusic for which you were arguing for 3 days. Can't you see that edit? HimuTheEditor (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For my edit on = (album), yes I made a mistake again but come on I reverted it, I mis read something in the manual again.

For my edit on chaos and the calm, I can't believe you didn't even bother going through the Wikipedia's manual. You're the one opposing the manual. This is such a general rule the bracket one you do not write (something) (something) like this. but like (something) [something], and for moving the deluxe version to the bottom, it's because its an alternate version and it was released in 2015, way after standard and deluxe edition. and WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice and according to his Disc one comes first, then any other Discs and then alternate versions; if any. That version is not present on Physical CD and should be put at last, as the first tracklisting is of CD and the 3rd too, so it makes more sense that way. See how digital tracks at put at the end x (Ed Sheeran album), and for the Scars live at iTunes 2014 title, its coz of that brackets rule which is pretty obvious as it cant be done in note. HimuTheEditor (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC) After more thoroughly, reading through your edit on my talkpage, I read it and agree with it and I'm not reverting or editing on that topic now, why're you bringing it up now? it ended a day ago, if its cos of my edit on = (album) i have explained above and for that matter i reverted it in seconds apologizing. and for my last 2 edits on Chaos and the Calm, let's take admin's point of view coz you're clearly not happy letting someone edit what you wrote, cos if you weren't you had totally understand what I'm saying. HimuTheEditor (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize, it's been a busy couple of days and I'm having a hard time keeping up with all this. Sergecross73   msg me  17:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, this editor's trying to have an argument with me on your talk page. There's no point in keeping up with it. I've tried to explain this to them multiple times, they've refused to listen, and kept making the same edits to the point of disruption. It's the definition of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I'm not responding to them directly anymore because they are a timesink. If they make the same edits again, please block them, for your sake and mine.  Ss  112   01:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, did you even tried to go through my message once and understood what I was trying to say? Clearly, the point is we were arguing for the sake of the article. As from me the article's good as it is now (the edit you made) is good. I've read through the Manual of style for albums and other general stuff thoroughly and I will note create any mess/argument on the topics which have already been discussed. Like the headline of equal album, track listing of Chaos and the Calm etc, I've understood why you made them that way. HimuTheEditor (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:HimuTheEditor
Hi Serge. Kind of urgent matter here. I've come across an editor who since registering a couple of months ago has introduced a whole host of edits disregarding the Manual of Style and MOS:ALBUM on articles like Chaos and the Calm, = (album) and Blood Harmony. Chaos and the Calm went from this to this. The editor removed all sources for genres in the infobox, changed the date format for a British artist from mdy to dmy, added repeated links to the track listing, repeated every contributor's full name, added a trivial, unsourced "initial key" (which key each song starts in) column to the track listing, added a whole MOS:NOHIDE-violating "liner notes" section with fully printed credits for each track, all hidden by default.

Much the same happened on = (album) here. The editor has remained stubborn on their talk page (User talk:HimuTheEditor), not getting BRD, and telling me in an edit summary on = (album) here that they intend to revert my undoing of their mess because I didn't "discuss" it first, despite trying to explain on their talk page that essentially all of these edits are against the MOS. Can you please have a word with this editor? I get the feeling this will continue on unabated otherwise, because I'm not the first editor to try to explain. have both tried:, , and the editor has continued on. Thanks.  Ss  112   08:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The last comment on their talk page looked like you might have come to an understanding? Or is that not the latest? Sergecross73   msg me  11:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen that until just now. I'm not convinced it'll last. Will let you know if they continue on.  Ss  112   18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Serge. Unfortunately, this editor has continued on making misinformed edits. They have tried to say on Talk:Chaos and the Calm that others (presumably only me) should "not directly make major edits to the page" while making major edits to the article themselves . (I've since tried to restore the article to how it was before they ever edited it and told them they cannot bar others from making changes to any article.)
 * They've also restored part of their edits on = (album) then said in the edit summary to "see the talk page before making any edits" . They've insisted on including an Apple Music citation when MOS:ALBUM explicitly tells us we don't need to include sources for the credits (and we also should avoid links to stores and streaming platforms per WP:AFFILIATE), as well as removing a crucial part of the table caption. Both edits obviously disregard WP:BRD.
 * May you now be able to have a word to the editor on their talk page about not restoring these edits? All the edits they restored I have explained multiple times are against various guidelines.  Ss  112   23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Serge, I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here, but this editor cannot be trusted or taken at their word and it may be nearing time for a block for disruption/slow edit warring. They said they would stop unless they were "100% sure" then made the edits again. Then yesterday after your message, they were argumentative in one message then half an hour later apologised, cleared all their discussions on the articles' talk pages, then hours later made them again and said "you can restore them if you want". The latest rounds of their misinformed edits are here:, . I'm done trying to reason with them or caring for their BS apologies. It's basically just trolling at this point: same edit again, self-revert three minutes later.  Ss  112   06:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * They will not give up:, . This is beyond a joke at this point. Please block this user for disruption and edit warring.  Ss  112   10:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)