User talk:Sergecross73#RfC question

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1794609127}}

Serge's 36th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{IP|205.132.83.244}} has added three citations to Brandon Sosna about his father/brother but they do not mention Brandon at all. I've made a post on their talk page but received no response, and this is the third time I've had to revert their edits. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Protected. So, is that IP just trying to use that article to go on long monologue's criticizing his father? Am I reading that right? Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• There's an edit war happening on Missouri Tigers football between {{IP|201.150.118.26}} and User:Chasenielsen545. Both have been reverting each other over the past two days. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 12:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I didnt trust that person since he/she doesn’t have an account, and there’s been a lot of vandalism on football pages lately Chasenielsen545 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::And people with no account do vandalism on pages Chasenielsen545 (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::How are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289550636&oldid=1289508166 edits like this] vandalism? It looks like they're placing citation needed tags on content that don't have any sources on them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{talkstalk}} IPs are human too. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I guess I should provide diffs lol. It started with the IP making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289395232&oldid=1286470193 this change], which Chasenielsen manually reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289434585&oldid=1289395232 here]. IP made that change (by my count) 4 times, which Chasenielsen reverted each time. IP then deleted that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289495558&oldid=1289489627 entire reference] and put in CN tags [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289496892&oldid=1289495558 elsewhere] which Chasenielsen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=1289499161&oldid=1289497952 reverted], which they went back and forth on for a couple of edits.
• :This morning I took the liberty of finding sources for most of the CN tags & am working on the last set of tags in the Award winners section. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 13:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thank you, that helps. Your report is fine, its more I'm just confused by the conduct of Chase and the IP. The IPs edits aren't vandalism. And we don't usually include things like job title or email address in the author field of a reference, so I don't fault them for that, though it doesn't feel like their reasoning was in the right place either, as citing WP:ADVERT as they did doesn't make any sort of sense. Nor does removing the entire source.
• ::Normally, I'd protect the page, but they both seem equally deserving of being locked out of the article, and if I ad page protection that strong, then you wouldn't be able to edit it. And I don't want to lock you out, as you're addressing the actual problem at hand.
• ::I think I'll warn both for edit warring, and block if they go at it any further... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Actually, looks like you rightly already warned both, so I'll just start blocking if there's any more back and forth. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't think it will be necessary, however I would like to make a few comments here as a topic newbie.
• ::::I absolutely agree with everything here (in this discussion), including statements in my favor and against me, except for one important fact, which is not described here, but I consider important:
• ::::Here the @Esb5415 describes the process, but forgets to note the presence and absence of comments on provided changes, that I consider important and here is why.
• ::::I saw many cases when "classical way" (on the talk page) two-side discussion does not help to find consensus and usually such a result can be predicted not even starting it, i.e. if edit opponent stay comment-silent ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289434585][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289447239][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289456276][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289489627][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289499161][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289502609][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289508166]) even when you are not ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289445793 WP:ADVERT][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289450082 unexplained undo][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289478285 unexplained undo][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289495558 excessive and useless non-verifiable source with non topic non sense][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289496892 excessive and useless non-verifiable source with non topic non sense][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289497952 already at infobox][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289501442 Wikipedia:Vandalism][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289503760 Wikipedia:Vandalism][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Missouri_Tigers_football&diff=prev&oldid=1289550636 Wikipedia:Vandalism]) I see further discussion actions with that exact person is just pointless. His message approves such my POV - he reverted my edits not because he had doubt is it disruptive, but just because he summarized his negative attitude to exclusively IPs, that way - with no any way positive for Wikipedia reason. As an example as it used to be I can provide a couple of examples edit-commment discussion is rerally works and it's content have not to be ignored nor while desribing the situation nor during follow-up assessment as a way (or it's absense) to find WP:CONSENSUS. Here's some:
• ::::{{hidden begin}}
• ::::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Satkirin_Kaur_Khalsa&diff=prev&oldid=1289588982 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia,_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1289393305] reverter admitted own revert mistake on his own with no need of further disccussion;
• ::::*I made 2 edits commenting the main with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia,_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1289393305 style, WP:NOTREPOSITORY], other editor disagreed with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia,_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1289433840 Rv MOS errors.] meaning mostly he don't like style I made and no word about the links I fixed, I changed the link only leaving the style behind with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia,_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1289444909 WP:NOTREPOSITORY] only, he fixed my fix with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia,_Limited&diff=prev&oldid=1289462949 Updated link] that still looks good enough for me.
• ::::*One reverted my non-commented edit with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamzar&diff=prev&oldid=1289307953 AV], I made a new another edit commenting it with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamzar&diff=prev&oldid=1289311327 WP:NOTMANUAL], another one reverted my edit with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamzar&diff=prev&oldid=1289311411 AV], I did a new edit commenting it even further with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zamzar&diff=prev&oldid=1289316680 unexplained/unapproved undo, removed unsourced statements, by WP:NOTMANUAL WP:OR WP:V]
• ::::*reverted my uncommented edit with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections&oldid=1289308793 Unexplained changes]. I didn't ever deny as there was just cosmetic changes.
• ::::*etc.
• ::::{{hidden end}}
• ::::All of the above cases are "Consesus-found" with only similar to all of it is active "edit comment discussion" leading to result which clealy shows that way is extremely EFFECTIVE, but current case opponent didn't use that way showing he's not interesting in achieving a consensus that way expecting a different result from a discussion on a talk page is just stupid or insane ([https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/definition-of-insanity-albert-einstein as] of Einstein), so you can't deny I tried to achieve consensus until I still WP:AGF for a whole day long and just then I realized what he do is not intended to make Wikipedia better any way, but just some autonomous actions that undo everything I made regardless of whether it is useful for Wikipedia, controversial or harmful for Wikipedia, that is WP:Vandalism by definition and therefore it's revert is not covered by WP:3RR and can be done forever with no doubt.
• ::::All you can blame me in I will agree - I didn't use further steps of WP:CONBUILD, however I don't see that way as effective (have numerous notorious cases behind), as it usually lead to indefinite and ineffective discussion of ostensibly the permissibility of violating Wikipedia policy in articles during this indefinite discussion, which is wrong, because policy is already a consensus, and if we discuss it, then just to change it - and at this time, it's violations have nothing to do in the article (i.e. we must proceed from the situation of first removing the violation from the article - which is what I usually do - and only then discussing its permissibility in the article), thus - generally requirements for articles already had wide consensus (poliicies) were blurred until indefinite, which made the discussion useless, and only led to me being blocked, as the most unprotected/marginalized discussion interlocutor.
• ::::In this regard, I don't see the point in repeating these actions many times, since it is stupid (according to Einstein, see above for more) and instead I prefer to make as many constructive edits as possible (i.e. to another articles), "before I get blocked" (after all, this is what most often happens during such "broad discussions"), rather than "pour from empty to empty", which only leads to my blocking, without even denying the usefulness of my edits, which is nonsense in total itself.
• ::::However, I must note that I am surprised by the outcome of the current discussion, as such, which "brought the stars together" into a "constellation" that was quite successful (meaning both not negative for my status and still positive result-related) for me (human too by passing by TPS - thank you, exactly mutual and not one sided [as usual] WP:WAR warning, improvement of the controversial article, which was the goal of my last edits, not just by a third party, but by the one who raised the page protection issue, which is extremely pleasant, but unimaginably rare, such sensible administrator considering page protection from both sides - and not just from me, as from whom the level of blocking have to be sufficiently lower and therefore "easier" -, still realizing the consequences of protection of a higher order, and reasoning [explaining it to others] about this is not the great way, etc.), because such a right way actvity and further discussion in "edit conflict without direct dispute" between registered and unregistered users - an exceptional rarity.
• ::::I do not deny the nuances and discrepancies of the above, but I ask you to consider this as a real case of how reality can be different from bureaucracy, and when reality in matters of making changes to articles should win, and not drag on forever with bureaucracy (which only harms the improvement of Wikipedia).
• ::::Also, such a discussion is an excellent example of a positive resolution of a conflict situation in an article through not only objective discussion, but also the desire and involvement of a third party to not only search and find, but to create (by editing the article and adding new data) one that suits everyone.
• ::::Thank you for this.
• ::::I would argue with the statement that the presence of an email in an article is not WP:ADVERT (in particular, of whose address it is), however current case related it's no more the issue. 201.150.118.26 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::You can lock/protect the page if you want, fine with me, I normally just update the record. During football season Chasenielsen545 (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• There seems to be ongoing vandalism over at, of all places, Yakov Smirnoff. There are at least two recent incidents of IPs or new redlink users removing the fact that he's Jewish, which is even referenced.—The Keymaster (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/1289583560, you explained, "Lets hold off on placing this everywhere, I don't think its really appropriate for Wikipedia, particularly for this franchise". I understand. Which pages in the Wikipedia namespace apply to this situation? Ss0jse (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:See the conversation developing at its talkpage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sonic_the_Hedgehog_chronology Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

User:EmpyreanSquid83/Sandbox How about this? A new suggestion.EmpyreanSquid83 (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:It might be best to propose it on the article talk page. I know the current intro needs improvement, but I've hard a hard time figuring out how to write it. Personally, I feel like it should focus less on definitions, and more on actual sales content. But I'm not sure either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWodavoy356&oldid=prev&diff=1289811723 Check this out.] When I left a message for Wodavoy356, the topic was deleted, and when I looked at the diff summary, I saw that Wodavoy356's password was public. He should be blocked indefinitely.EmpyreanSquid83 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:That's certainly a bizarre comment on their part. I've asked them what's going on. I can't tell if they're saying they bought it or sold it, but neither scenario really makes any sense. It's an account with less than 100 edits. And it's free to make a Wikipedia account. Such an account has virtually no value. Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sergecross. I searched around to see who last blocked an account of BlaccCrab's and it was you late last year: User_talk:Sergecross73/Archive_93#User:BlaccCrab_block_evading. I believe {{noping|Screagle99}} is BlaccCrab block evading once again. They are back to their old habits, debating what is a single and what isn't across rock and hip-hop topics. They seem to keep returning to Landmines (song), which they've edited using multiple accounts, including the blocked User:Chopdrop1999 and several of their previous (blocked and since-unblocked) IPs, like 98.117.49.13. Also Kid Cudi topics, for example: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insano_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=1193016803 IP a year and a half ago], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Kid_Cudi_songs&diff=prev&oldid=1289540135 recent on Screagle99]. Skyversay (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, people keep reporting him to me, but I'm not all that familiar with their editing first hand, so while I'll dig into it, the more WP:DIFs you can provide, the better. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well...[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290303779 editing my user page in retaliation for a revert] seems like a very BlaccCrab thing to do. Skyversay (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Not to mention [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Screagle99&diff=next&oldid=1290303153&diffonly=1 blanking his talk page] after you ask him if he's edited here previously. I believe he's done that on previous accounts. Skyversay (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there any way you could remove the insult edit summaries on my user page, or is that not appropriate? Also, BlaccCrab/Screagle99 just reverted my talk page message using an IP address. Already block evading again. Skyversay (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, and the rude comments were dead giveaways too. Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you mind looking into the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JustMakeTheAccount behavior of this editor]? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:As you may have noticed, I attempted to talk with them some, but they only responded with non sequiturs. So I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JustMakeTheAccount&diff=prev&oldid=1290584976 left them a warning]. Keep me posted on future interactions and observation, and I'll try to keep an eye on things too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I did '''not respond with non sequiturs. Clearly you don't know the meaning of the word. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You didn't respond to a single concern, full stop. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Your ongoing mischaracterization of my behavior has moved beyond a simple misunderstanding; it now feels like a deliberate tactic. Initially, I tried to clarify my actions, assuming a good-faith misinterpretation. However, your continued insistence on portraying my contributions in a negative light, despite clear explanations, is becoming increasingly grating. It's as if you're building a narrative that simply doesn't align with reality. This persistent skewing of my record, combined with a demeanor that seems intent on finding fault at every turn, is frankly irritating. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JustMakeTheAccount&oldid=1290584976 this exchange] constitutes an on-topic response from you? Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to :User talk:JustMakeTheAccount may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Know that if you block me for the reasons you have mentioned, you will lose your admin status just like Graham87. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do not leave me bogus warnings. Any more of this and your account will be temporarily be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Read what I said above. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)