User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 57

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Nakon • Scott

  Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

  Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

  Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

  Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

After being blocked for 1 or 2 weeks, Strangeguy91 returned to genre warring and all the other edits he has made before being blocked. Now he is even using an IP to make these same edits. It's like he's using many accounts to make these edits. There might be a chance that he even is Mikeis1996. It seems like every time we warn him, he persists.

Other possible IPs of Strangeguy91:

• Special:Contributions/2601:19A:4000:47BE:3C20:D11D:4D8D:1FAF
• Special:Contributions/73.218.251.174
• Special:Contributions/2601:19A:4000:47BE:EDDB:18E3:8130:902E

Statik N (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked, protected a few common pages. Let me know if there's other ones he's heavily hitting and I can protect those too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's Statik. I wanted to let you know that back in December, I nominated Spit (album) for a good article review and haven't gotten any response. The article was copy-edited but never got reviewed for a good article status. I've had other articles get nominated for good article status (Results May Vary, Nu metal, My Own Worst Enemy (song)) and they all got reviewed (Results May Vary passed, the other 2 didn't). Spit (album) never got reviewed. It seems I was told by another Wikipedian that it took 6 months for one of the articles they edited to get reviewed. It's now been nine months since I nominated the Spit article for good article status. Do you know what I could do? Thanks. Statik N (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Statik N - With the video games Wikiproject, editors often set up deals with each other - offering to do a GA review for someone if they agree to do the same for them. You could try WP:ALBUMS and see if anyone would be willing to do the same, if you are hypothetically willing to do a review for someone else. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You've got books by no-name authors, Tommy Udo listed as an author on "Brave Nu World" is a character from a 1940s movie: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGGE___US617US761&q=Tommy+Udo+heavy+metal&oq=Tommy+Udo+heavy+metal&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.1222.3806.0.4085.16.13.2.0.0.0.288.1113.5j2j2.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.7.791...0j33i21k1.RFRDA3532vY. The sources are BAD and you know it. Stop being ridiculous and remove nu-metal from the Mudvayne pages. --74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't mention the actual source, so I have no way of checking, but I take it you're unfamiliar with the concept of a pen name, I assume? Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the evidence and listened to all the people trying to correct your insane, nonsensical rampage, you would understand that Mudvayne is a progressive metal band. It would do you better to correct the genre instead of accusing everyone who tries to correct your stupidity of being "one guy" like an utter moron. Mudvayne is progressive metal. Listen to your peers. --74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what exactly you're referring to with some of your vague accusations, as I haven't had to mediate any disputes about Mudvayne for a while now, but if all you're going to do is remove sourced genre and replace it with unsourced genre, you're going to be blocked from editing. You don't seem new to this, so this is your only warning. Sergecross73 msg me 21:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Serge I gave him a block and reverted some 15-20 genre changes, most of them involving the direct removal of sourced genres to replace with progressive metal. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Pretty sure this is the same guy who's been genre-warring and IP hopping over Mudvayne genre for the last 5+ years. Sergecross73 msg me 22:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Serge's 18th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you see may need intervention. Ferret may also answer queries, as we're both generally pretty active and on the same page when it comes to policy. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Another Andy: Andy6t54 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

•   Done -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Andy6432.6 (talk · contribs) and Andy76432228 (talk · contribs). And IP ban might be needed here, as he's constantly ban evading and adding false info to articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Another Andy9999998 (talk · contribs). --The1337gamer (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• All blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Andy199999999990 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll start WP:SALTing the stupid hoax game article he creates too, though he keeps changing the naming, in the ones I've come across... Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Two more: Andy9999990 (talk · contribs) and Andrew64869099997 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done -- ferret (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's a recent Andy account I found: Andy19999965499990 (talk · contribs) – Hounder4 01:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Another: Andy7543.0000 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Both blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• BumperMunch (talk · contribs): blanked the Sonic '06 page twice a short while ago. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing to do here. Two blanks, two warnings, nothing since. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, FYI, Joebro, in addition to what ferret said, while the edits were definitely disruptive, usually if an account hasn't edited in a few days, it's considered "stale" and not blocked until/unless it becomes active again. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Another: Andy7543.0000976 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done -- ferret (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Another: Andy7543.0000000090 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done by Serge. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• 82.193.98.133 (talk · contribs) Keeps adding unsourced speculation to the Shadow the Hedgehog article. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  Blocked 3 months. -- ferret (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• I was initially surprised by the duration, but looking at the block log, it looks like its been the same guy for at least a year, and nothing good seems to come from it, so that's fine. Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I did 3 cause it was consistent disruption and 1 month was the last block. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs) continues to go on articles and mass adding the break template to the game's title in the infobox, despite being reverted and warned for it many times over the last year or two. Is it possible to mass revert all of his recent edits, and provide a final warning? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Dissident93: I've blocked him again (He just came off a 1 week block), since this was specifically pointed out in his last final warning. I will have to leave the clean up to you though. I do not have time today to read through them. I would appreciate if you post to his user talk page in reply to my block if you can further explain to him the issue (again). -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Good block. I'd have done the same. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Just wondering, but is there not an admin tool that can select a range of edits to be reverted? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think so. If there is, it's crazy advanced stuff, like range blocks, or something people make bots do... Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• The rollback we have is the same rollback everyone else has (Either via TW or rollback right). -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Interesting. Well by checking the edits, it seems that not all of them include just the break tag, so it has to be done manually anyway to avoid reverting valid ones. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• Whoahy (talk · contribs) just blanked the List of video games considered the best page. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Hes made 2 bad edits, with 2 warnings. Now he's stopped. If he goes 3/3, I'll block him. But I want to see if he stops first. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Batman: Arkham Origins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): An IP editor is edit warring their own POV on the article, even after discussing on the Talk page. Requesting temporary semi. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Im confused. It looks like the talk page discussion ending with you no longer opposing the IP? Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, then later Darkwarriorblake reverted them citing WP:OR, with another user continuing discussion with the same issue. Since Blake's reversion, I've changed my mind on the issue. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't vocalized this at the talk page yet, and Blake just recently did, so I really can't take action on this one at this point. Sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Andy531.0 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Done. -- ferret (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. I caught and blocked Andy7543.88 myself over the weekend too, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Not directly vandalism, but the Christian Whitehead article needs protection, as some editor keeps adding unreliable sources to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Gave a warning to the IP. Would not protect just for a single IP, would block them once sufficient warnings are given. It always helps us if warnings have already been given so we can take actions. Please also remember that unsourced information (i.e. not clearly vandalism) can be seen as 3RR violations. Just friendly reminder. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• True, but wouldn't 3RR also apply to me too, even though the citations being used are clearly non-reliable? That was never made fully clear to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• That's what I meant. An overly strict reviewer could hit you for 3RR as well. 3RR's exemptions are fairly black and white and pretty much only exempt direct obvious vandalism. -- ferret (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Duck Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – IPs and users continuously adding an unsourced release date for the PlayStation 4 version of the game. Had already sent to the official RfPP after the 2nd time but got declined; this is now the 3rd time this has happened. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like the PS4 release date has been announced though, per here and here. Adding it with a source would probably be the best solution here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
• Addition thoughts: RFPP is never going to protect because of two edits. RFPP (and generally applies to me and Serge as well) will only take action when there's a longer term pattern of disruption, from many different editors. We're talking 6-8+ edits at least over a reasonably short time, generally. I would also advice doing a quick google if you see edits like this coming from multiple editors. While unsourced, the flow of edits generally indicates that its been announced but new editors don't understand sourcing. I.e. its not really disruption, just incomplete. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Andy89ok8 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

    Done -- ferret (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sonic Probe (talk · contribs) – Moved page DanTDM against a consensus that was already established and now just recently removed a speedy deletion tag from their own redirect. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• I moved it back, deleted at least one of the implausible names/redirects created by him, and requested that he stop with the page moves until he's got a better grip on editing. (He's got less than 50 edits to his name, so he's pretty new.) Let me know if there are further issues. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

And the user is back to making page moves against consensus. They're clearly WP:NOTHERE. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Has already been blocked for a week. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I blocked for a week last night after jd's report at RfPP. Made no sense to protect user talk when one user was the problem. Virtually all Probe's edits are problematic, so I suspect it's going to end up being an indef block. Enigma^msg 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I would have done the same, and will likely just indef if he keeps it up when he returns. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Andy753.9 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

•   Done -- ferret (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• 184.16.254.103 (talk · contribs) persistently targeting Nintendo DS pages to vandalise. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can you provide some examples? Most of what I've spotchecked, look more like "misguided" or "not necessary" rather than vandalism. Additionally, you haven been using edit summaries in your reversions, and your warnings, while not incorrect, are rather vague and generic. I'm not sure they quite get to the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• True, I can now agree that this IP was rather misguided in their series of edits/edit warring, which includes changing "EU/IN" releases to either just "EU" or just "IN", changing genres, and removing release dates from the lead, which the first and last actions were more common in their edits to Super Mario 64 DS. Genre changing seemed more common on Mario Kart articles (Racing to Kart racing), though I don't know if there was ever a consensus related to this. If this IP does come back, I will consider raising concerns at the edit warring noticeboard. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Tripple-dd: 91.113.101.79 (talk · contribs). IP address location matches previous IPs.--The1337gamer (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Hi, Serge. It's this person again - "Justinzimmer1398". He's back and adding more hoaxes about fake albums and songs. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justinzimmer868.
  • And this IP "2604:6000:e840:f100:cca3:e6d9:d392:7c96" that's added the Electric Paradise (hoax album) in a song article, may also be the same person because the IP added it first before Justin. — Zawl 15:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Blocked Justin. Is there any reason to believe Electric Playground is an actual thing, or is it a complete hoax? Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I tried looking for it on Google but found nothing except the music festival "Electric Paradise". It's likely a complete hoax because Justinzimmer, who has added unsourced content many times before through his socks, had involvement in trying to add "Electric Paradise" to articles related to David Guetta. — Zawl 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Andy7659822 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• I'd like to request some feedback regarding Template:Five Nights at Freddy's. I tend to keep our navboxes clean by removing redirects, duplicates, and other uninteresting links (ref WP:NAV [essay] and WP:NAVBOX [guideline]). An IP who seems to enjoy hopping just a bit has continued to re-add redirect articles to the template without any discussion--though not clear vandalism, the OWNy/uncommunicative nature of the IP is evident. I've dropped a couple warnings but the IP changes each time thereafter. Can you semi-protect/block for some reasonable time? The range apparently has an edit filter assigned to it (Special:AbuseFilter/846) which tags the edits in the history. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  @LordTobi: who might also have an opinion. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Lordtobi: Fix ^ --Izno (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, I can protect it for a bit. Can you start up a discussion on the talk page, even if it's just a copy/paste reworking of a comment you left the IP on their talk page, or of the comment you left to me above? Just so there's a starting point if the IP actually decides to to discuss once they're unable to edit it directly, however unlikely that may be. Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  I did the thing. Your turn! :^) --Izno (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  Protection would be great, but the FNaF template is not the IP's only target. From just this page's history, I created an IP backlog (seen below), which's pages should be protected as well. Since they had [at least] twelve warnings and are clearly WP:NOTHERE, a range-block would be wishable, but is sadly unlikely due to the fundamental IP changes.

  172.58.100.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.100.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.100.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.56.7.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.99.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.102.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.102.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.99.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.100.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.100.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.99.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.100.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.99.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.103.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.103.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.98.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.103.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.56.7.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.58.99.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.56.7.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  172.56.6.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

  Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(←) Calculator for the two ranges indicates that soft rangeblocks might be reasonable: Sorted 17 IPv4 addresses:

172.58.98.134

172.58.99.47

172.58.99.101

172.58.99.113

172.58.99.166

172.58.99.168

172.58.100.83

172.58.100.115

172.58.100.145

172.58.100.187

172.58.100.212

172.58.100.216

172.58.102.208

172.58.102.221

172.58.103.26

172.58.103.34

172.58.103.79

Sorted 3 IPv4 addresses (after omitting some duplicates):

172.56.6.252

172.56.7.77

172.56.7.162

--Izno (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still haven't gotten around to learning range-blocks, so you may have to present that elsewhere if you want that done. Sorry. That being said, unless I'm looking at it wrong, it looks like the damage is primarily at the template itself, so it seems like the template's protection should stop the bulk if the issues at least. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• New Super Mario Bros. looks like it needs protection. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• It looks like someone already blocked the IP, and it seems like all the issues were coming from that one IP. Let me know if any other IPs start trouble, and I'll protect it then. Sergecross73 msg me 02:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, could you please block this IP 2604:6000:e840:f100:5157:e836:fecf:1bf6? It might be a sock of Justinzimmer as they recreated the Electric Paradise page and few minutes later another sock of theirs showed up to undo it. The latter was blocked by GeneralizationsAreBad. — Zawl 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi there. I didn't block the IP, just because it hasn't made any edits in the last few days, but I did lock Electric Paradise so that only Admin can edit it, so none of the IPs or Justin usernames can recreate it. I'll unlock it if it ends up being a real thing someday. Sergecross73 msg me 12:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Amy is cool (talk · contribs) Changing release dates without a source just like the Andy accounts. Could they be the same person? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Someone else has indeffed them. (For what its worth, based on this reaction, I doubt it was that Andy guy, but the block was deserved regardless. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Andy9985 (talk · contribs) --The1337gamer (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

•   Done -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Dgtws (talk · contribs) Has only ever edited the Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), and they're usually unconstructive. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also another Andy: Andy89098777656667789999 (talk · contribs) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked Andy. Warned Dgtws. I can't tell if they're edits are vandalism or "goodfaith but terrible". No one has said anything to them yet though, so I gave them a warning for now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Justinzimmer135 (talk · contribs) another one. — Zawl 02:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked user, deleted and salted hoax article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• This IP 2604:6000:e840:f100:c522:deb2:6ecb:9f3a (talk · contribs) also keeps adding the hoax album to articles[1][2]. Probably Justin? — Zawl 13:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A host of IP users undoing numerous edits on List of iOS games, which are listed here, here, here, here, here, here...it appears the list just keeps going and going from here on out and appears to be disruptive edits causing a massive edit war. Do you mind protecting the page against any further IP edits? Be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

•   Not done We don't protect pages over a single IP. Report them to AIV if sufficent warnings are issued. -- ferret (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to talk to you about the use of "Encyclopedia of Popular Music" on Mudvayne. I contacted the author of the book, Colin Larkin, asking for a retraction of the claim of Mudvayne being nu-metal. He responded that the book was authored by people other than him and that the research in the book was based on the Internet, which makes this source unusable for an encyclopedia as the book itself is unencyclopedic, despite the title. His email is documented here: http://mudvayneisaprogressivemetalband.blogspot.com/2017/09/mudvayne-is-not-and-has-never-been-nu.html

I do not intend on using Wikipedia and since I am writing you from a public computer station, I ask that you email me at isaacbaranoff@gmail.com if you wish to respond since I do not have an account here that you can respond to. All I have to say about the citations being used on the Mudvayne articles is that they are being used irresponsibly and incorrectly and the citations used to claim Mudvayne as a nu-metal band do not warrant any intellectual consideration, as the ultimate source of said information is, to be absolutely frank, Internet trolls. Mudvayne was always a progressive metal band and was never claimed as a nu-metal band by any credible authorities, and certainly not before 2014. -- Isaac Baranoff, noted progressive rock composer/recording artist since 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.115.13.114 (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources call them both genre. So we label them both. The end. The lengths you're going to portray a subjective things as objectively wrong is baffling. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Good day. Please can you check out the new article i'm making.... If there are mistakes please send them to my talk page. Do not put it up to deletion please. A kind request from Arepticous (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Arepticous

Sure, I can look it over. I assume you haven't made it yet, as I don't see it in your recent list of edits? Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Please can you tell me what we are supposed to do when signing messages. I dont understand how to put Arepticous (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC) when signing. Please send me how. Arepticous Arepticous (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Arepticous - To sign your posts, all you have to do is type ~ four times. So, write your message, and write ~~~~ at the end, and it'll automatically show up when you save the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for replying on my message. I finished the article.But i have a few problems. Can you fix that. Arepticous (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Arepticous

Hi there. I don't meant to be harsh...but the article is in pretty rough shape. There really aren't any proper references, and there's a lot of typos and errors in it. I'd recommend moving it to the WP:DRAFT space - essentially turning it into a "rough draft", and improving it there. Not many people will see it in the draft space, but at least that way it won't be deleted. (I won't nominate it for deletion...but if someone else did, they'd probably be successful in getting it deleted.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Good day. But the user Sitush on his user page has used some inappropriate language. Please consider checking it. Thank you.Arepticous (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific, as it's not jumping out at me. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Nor would I think its particularly actionable. I didn't see anything either. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Good day. Can you please tell me how to join a wikipedian project? I'll keep trying. Thanks. Arepticous (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty informal process - there's usually a list you can add yourself to, and a WP:USERBOX to put on your WP:USERPAGE, but otherwise, you just start editing related articles and being involved on the respective WikiProject's talk pages.

If you want to read more about WikiProjects, here's a bunch of frequently asked questions. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Good day. But i don't understand what you mean. The typical typing means? Arepticous (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you referring to when I renamed your article because I said your version wasn't how the book was typically titled? Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

GOOD DAY, I need you to check on Pxbot II/Bad words. He made a list of bad words. Which i erased from his user page. Please check on him. He also didn't have permission to write anything yet. Thank you Arepticous (talk) 05:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What you posted does not link to anything, so I am unable to check it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

how can we be a member of the counter vandalism unit? I would love to join it! how can we join the counter vandalism unit? Please reply. Arepticous (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty similar to joining a WikiProject. You add yourself to the list, put a userbox on your talk page, and start removing vandalism. This page explains how to add yourself to the list. The rest is just covered at WP:CVU. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross. I tried to explain—with no condescension intended, but perhaps some frustration showed—why I redirected several of the user Sidewalkfins87's articles for failing WP:NALBUMS on their talk page. They responded with calling me a "fucking prick", then removing this and calling me an "entitled twat" in the next edit upon embellishing the message. I asked them not to personally attack editors and to remain calm, but it's quite honestly baffling to me how an editor thinks this is acceptable conduct. Do you think my warning is sufficient? Ss112 19:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning. It does seem like common sense would dictate that comments like that aren't allowed, but it doesn't seem they were ever directly notified it wasn't allowed, so I'll give them one last chance. Let me know if any other unconstructive comments are made. (Though his conduct is not very subtle, so I imagine I'll catch it.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sergecross: is this okay for a user to do? Daddy Issues (album) is an album by Brooke Candy that has been constantly hinted at as coming out since 2015. The article was redirected in August by Anonpediann; they had previously expressed to me that they were unsure it was ever going to be released. Then, on September 9, the user Love on the Brain copied the contents of the page into the draft space at Draft:Daddy Issues (album). Shouldn't the page have been moved into the draft space to maintain its history? The page has a significant page history, dating back to June 2016 when it was created by the user "Sweden Rocks hard". I'm just concerned that this user, if the album gets the official go-ahead, will develop the draft themselves then request that it be moved over the top of the article, erasing its history. Ss112 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends on how they handle it from here. If they do it as you fear they would, yes, that would be frowned upon. But sometimes, what people do is, copy/paste an article into draft space, make a bunch of edits themselves there, and then copy/paste it entirely back into the main space. I've seen a number of experienced editors do that without any opposition, so I've assumed that is okay. (Conceptually, it seems like it would be - let's say an editor copied it to the draft space, made 10 edits, and then copies it back to main space. Even if the 10 small edits in the draft were lost, technically all the actual changes would still be documented in the one edit where it's copied back into the article. This concept wouldn't hold up though, if 2 or more editors were editing the draft though, which is why I think people usually do this is sandboxes or userspace drafts.

So, short version, I dont think they've done anything wrong yet, but yes, there are a few ways where things could go wrong though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A redirect is valid, as is draft work on the article. What is likely to happen is the draft would be histmerged over the redirect later. That maintains the history of both. -- ferret (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)