User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 56
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sergecross73. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 50 | ← | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
How does this work?
Hi Sergecross73; I have asked the creator but gotten no response, but from an admin's point of view: how can this work? Freedom Child versus Freedom Child. The former (correct) is a redirect to the latter, which I think has been created with a different character, but they both appear to be the same in Wikipedia text. The editor TheMagnificentist appears to have jumped through a hoop to create the latter to avoid creating content at the redirect I made. Ss112 12:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Call me completely confused on this one. Maybe some sort of unicode character? Maybe @Izno has an idea, he's got a lot of technical knowledge about mediawiki. -- ferret (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, same. Additionally, I'm confused as to why you'd think that an editor would try to "jump through a hoop" to create an article fresh instead of at your redirect. What would be the point of that? Did you guys have a disagreement on whether or not the article should exist or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It appears to be a different F character. Typing F into the search box doesn't point to the F page. I think it must be an invisible Unicode character, as pressing backspace once next to it gets rid of it. Ss112 13:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret and Ss112: One of these indeed has a character that is not in the basic ASCII character set. The redirect is Freedom+Child and the existing page is F%E2%80%8Dreedom+Child. The latter should be moved to the former and subsequently nominated for (speedy) deletion as an implausible redirect. TheMagnificentist Please don't do that. I don't know if it was deliberate, but really, don't do that. --Izno (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was deliberate; it could be a weird copypaste in this instance, but TheMagnificentist has previously avoided creating content at articles I've created as redirects. Earlier this year he wanted to split several EDM artists' discography sections off into separate "[artist] discography" article (Flume discography being one), but evidently saw I had already created those as redirects months before, so he moved my redirects to a page in his userspace then created content over the moved page so it would appear he created it (with some excuse about it being a "smoother transition" in the edit summary). It's a recurring thing with them. Ss112 13:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like trying to make sure they get article create credit, and seems like inappropriate abuse of redirects and page titles. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Abuse of redirects and page titles on whose part? Ss112 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- TheMagnificentist -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Yes, I agree. I have pointed this out to them in the past, but to not much avail. Ss112 13:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This needs a soft response as it is WP:GAMEing. He can take credit for creation of the article without abusing the name. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I replied to the similar discussion at Ss112's talk page with a ping to Magnificentist and a direct request that this behavior not be done. -- ferret (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- This needs a soft response as it is WP:GAMEing. He can take credit for creation of the article without abusing the name. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh. Yes, I agree. I have pointed this out to them in the past, but to not much avail. Ss112 13:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- TheMagnificentist -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: Abuse of redirects and page titles on whose part? Ss112 13:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like trying to make sure they get article create credit, and seems like inappropriate abuse of redirects and page titles. -- ferret (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know if this was deliberate; it could be a weird copypaste in this instance, but TheMagnificentist has previously avoided creating content at articles I've created as redirects. Earlier this year he wanted to split several EDM artists' discography sections off into separate "[artist] discography" article (Flume discography being one), but evidently saw I had already created those as redirects months before, so he moved my redirects to a page in his userspace then created content over the moved page so it would appear he created it (with some excuse about it being a "smoother transition" in the edit summary). It's a recurring thing with them. Ss112 13:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, same. Additionally, I'm confused as to why you'd think that an editor would try to "jump through a hoop" to create an article fresh instead of at your redirect. What would be the point of that? Did you guys have a disagreement on whether or not the article should exist or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've moved the article over the redirect. -- ferret (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- (←) from above: @Ss112: Please watch Special:Whatlinkshere for then ext couple days to make sure all uses fall off outside the user talk space. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. It definitely appears TheMagnificentist was well aware they had done this, as they changed where my redirect pointed to (pointing it to the erroneous character space), and piped the link on other pages. Ss112 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, for what its worth, I've made an article at "Unique Title" and then shortly after discovered that there was already a "Unique Title (song)" article, and then ended up redirecting one to the other, so it in theory is possible he just stumbled upon it and didn't know about it prior on that reasoning alone. But that being said, it seems rather implausible that he accidentally used that alternate "F" character though, so you're probably ultimately correct. Anyways, as long as he stops this practice, we should be all set here. Thanks all for helping. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Based on @Primefac's reply at TheMagnificentist talk page this is a recurring issue. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I copypasted the title "Freedom Child" (with the bad F), unintentionally, I didn't type out the character. — TheMagnificentist 15:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Based on @Primefac's reply at TheMagnificentist talk page this is a recurring issue. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, for what its worth, I've made an article at "Unique Title" and then shortly after discovered that there was already a "Unique Title (song)" article, and then ended up redirecting one to the other, so it in theory is possible he just stumbled upon it and didn't know about it prior on that reasoning alone. But that being said, it seems rather implausible that he accidentally used that alternate "F" character though, so you're probably ultimately correct. Anyways, as long as he stops this practice, we should be all set here. Thanks all for helping. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Will do. It definitely appears TheMagnificentist was well aware they had done this, as they changed where my redirect pointed to (pointing it to the erroneous character space), and piped the link on other pages. Ss112 13:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ferret: @Izno: @Primefac: Just letting all who've commented here know that TheMagnificentist has sent me an "I'm saying I'm not attacking you but I am"-type email (through Wikipedia, as I was notified), titled "Bet you're happy now", including some choice quotes like "You want credit for things that aren't yours. You don't care about Wikipedia, you only edit to get higher edit count as you've shown by regularly updating the edit count on your userpage" (which I've done only several times in the last year, and I've stuck around for a very long time for someone who only cares about one thing, but okay). Despite being told to get over being the "creator" of things on his talk page, TheMagnificentist went on to say: "I'm not personally attacking you or anything but just letting you know how I feel after your recent activities have caused me to lose my deserving place as creator of those articles and their content. You just love playing good guy when talking to an admin, pretending to be so innocent and not admitting wrong. Wise up and stop acting like a kid." I'm confused as to how I tried to "play" the good guy; I simply informed an admin as I was genuinely confused as to how two seemingly same-titled pages could exist, and then I tied it back to recurring issues of the sort. Is this acceptable or considered harassment? Ss112 08:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Everything is harassment nowadays huh? I just emailed you as a regular editor, looking for clarification. Harassment means repetitive bad behavior towards another person. Nothing bad and repetitive in my message. Why would you exaggerate? The admins here did tell me to get over it, and I have. But that doesn't mean I can't keep it to myself. I'm not being open about it. You're the one who's making it open. — TheMagnificentist 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Stepping aside from the harassment debate...what in the world did you need clarification on? This all seems like a very simple, "open and shut case". Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Although I did not post all of the email (I left out maybe two lines), there were no questions asked in it, and there was no tone of "I need clarification". It read like an ad hominem attack and projecting, as there was another line ("You redirect pages because they can get you higher page creation count"), which I find very hypocritical considering the amount of redirects TheMagnificentist has created and continues to create themselves. Ss112 12:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ive issued a final warning that he needs to drop it 100%. Let me know if it occurs again, but otherwise, try not to bring it up either, to avoid the possibility of being perceived as trying to "bait" him. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- I acknowledge. — TheMagnificentist 14:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ive issued a final warning that he needs to drop it 100%. Let me know if it occurs again, but otherwise, try not to bring it up either, to avoid the possibility of being perceived as trying to "bait" him. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Although I did not post all of the email (I left out maybe two lines), there were no questions asked in it, and there was no tone of "I need clarification". It read like an ad hominem attack and projecting, as there was another line ("You redirect pages because they can get you higher page creation count"), which I find very hypocritical considering the amount of redirects TheMagnificentist has created and continues to create themselves. Ss112 12:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Stepping aside from the harassment debate...what in the world did you need clarification on? This all seems like a very simple, "open and shut case". Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Everything is harassment nowadays huh? I just emailed you as a regular editor, looking for clarification. Harassment means repetitive bad behavior towards another person. Nothing bad and repetitive in my message. Why would you exaggerate? The admins here did tell me to get over it, and I have. But that doesn't mean I can't keep it to myself. I'm not being open about it. You're the one who's making it open. — TheMagnificentist 08:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- You were told to get over it by administrators and here you are, nearly two days later, sending me an email showing how mad you still are about it. The fact that you sent it through an email shows that you know it would cast you in a bad light, hence why you didn't send it to me via my talk page. There is no attempt at seeking clarification; it's just attacks on me and what I'm on Wikipedia for. Your words speak for themselves, especially telling me to "grow up", when it appears you need to do more of that yourself, as demonstrated by actions like this. I'm pretty sure sending an email where you chastise someone falls under the category of "bad" here, and it's repeated as you have communicated your displeasure over things like this before. This is absolutely not keeping it to yourself; you contacted me when I clearly didn't wish to engage with you any further on the matter; now it appears you want to continue it and I'm not going to be silent about editors thinking it's a-okay to send emails like this. I'm not going to continue arguing with you here or anywhere. My main point was asking others if it was acceptable after you were told to leave it alone. Ss112 08:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Elmodivot sock
Hi Sergecross, I believe I've found another sockpuppet: 73.79.235.52. Edits on same pages: [1] Cjhard (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted template help
Is there any way to view a template that has been deleted without going through WP:REFUND? I'd like to see if {{8DE8STeamBracket}} which was deleted in October 2016 from lack of use, is the same one used at Liquidpedia for their coverage on The International 2017, as I'd like to use it here as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Technically, I can undelete stuff for you. And I could for this, but when I try to look at this, it doesn't really show anything. I'm pretty tired at the moment, so maybe I'm looking at this wrong (ferret? Salvidrim?) but it's looking like essentially an empty template for me... Sergecross73 msg me 01:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- It has a huge bunch of code. At this point I'd suggest e-mailing a text copy to you, Dissident93, if you wanna look before deciding whether to request undeletion Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- If that's fine with you, go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Salvidrim - Can you help again? I'm stuck on mobile and busy until Monday... Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. Dissident, email me so I can reply with the text file (I'm worried that just putting the code in a plaintext email will fuck it up) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Done ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- And sent Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help. Much appreciated! Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Following up to this, but the template appears to be semi-broken in my sandbox, and I can't find any documentation to which parameters to use. It seems like the one at Liquidpedia uses custom parameters that include Dota specific information, such as the heroes and links to third-party websites for match data too. I guess we'd need to request a custom one to be made by scratch. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, let me know if you need anything else, but I'm not template expert by any means - the only time I make them, I merely find a similar template in structure to what I want to create, and just create a duplicate where I sub in my desired information, so my advice isn't going to be much more helpful than stuff like that, haha. Sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Following up to this, but the template appears to be semi-broken in my sandbox, and I can't find any documentation to which parameters to use. It seems like the one at Liquidpedia uses custom parameters that include Dota specific information, such as the heroes and links to third-party websites for match data too. I guess we'd need to request a custom one to be made by scratch. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the help. Much appreciated! Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- And
- Sure. Dissident, email me so I can reply with the text file (I'm worried that just putting the code in a plaintext email will fuck it up) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Salvidrim - Can you help again? I'm stuck on mobile and busy until Monday... Sergecross73 msg me 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- If that's fine with you, go ahead. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- It has a huge bunch of code. At this point I'd suggest e-mailing a text copy to you, Dissident93, if you wanna look before deciding whether to request undeletion Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Personal attacks/baseless accusations by editor
Hey Sergecross73, sorry to bother you about something in as many hours, but for the second time (and after their being told by another editor not to personally attack another user), I have been accused by the editor Patricia CV on their talk page of being "xenophobic" for no reason other than they appear to be Brazilian and feel that despite their history of disruption, original research and sockpuppeting, I'm unfairly targeting them or something. They said it's "ironic" I reverted them on Hear Me Now (Alok song) (despite that being a redirect I created) because I "hate Brazilians"(???) I was accused earlier this year of being "sexist" and "xenophobic" for reverting their addition of unsourced genres to Emma Bunton articles (maybe reverting bossa nova on those articles made me xenophobic in their eyes? Not sure). I'm not sure what to do about this editor. Should it just be ignored? Ss112 20:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, ask for help as often as you like. My only request in helping people as an admin is that they don't hound me and give me attitude if I don't agree with the actions they're requesting. In regards to this situation, I can give them a warning about stuff like WP:AGF and WP:NPA at least for now, and see if that helps. Can you give me a direct link to where she called you sexist and/or xenophobic though? It's not so much that I doubt you, I'd just like to see the context myself. If you can do that, I'll say something to her. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. Just earlier here (my response is the next/current edit), and earlier on their talk page at User talk:Patricia CV#Emma Bunton (from January this year). I probably could have handled the earlier situation better, but my message was following their then-recent edits across the Spice Girls' solo material, where they disagreed with sourced genres on pages like L.A. State of Mind, then when they didn't get their way, resorted to using IPs to reinstate what they had originally added and so I was frustrated and trying to get them to stop all the unsourced fancrufty additions. Ss112 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Ss112 Sorry for the delayed response on this, I had a busy weekend, and was swamped by a number of other requests and complaints I had to deal with. I wrote her a message about this. Hopefully it helps. If further issues on this arise, let me know, and I can intervene further. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. Just earlier here (my response is the next/current edit), and earlier on their talk page at User talk:Patricia CV#Emma Bunton (from January this year). I probably could have handled the earlier situation better, but my message was following their then-recent edits across the Spice Girls' solo material, where they disagreed with sourced genres on pages like L.A. State of Mind, then when they didn't get their way, resorted to using IPs to reinstate what they had originally added and so I was frustrated and trying to get them to stop all the unsourced fancrufty additions. Ss112 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
unsuitable edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please refrain from doing such unbalanced reverts... totally unappreciated. You destroyed other fixings AND this was NOT under current debate: FERRET was fine with this edit. (CENSORED) Shaddim (talk)
- It's very simple. Don't continue editing about things actively being disputed on the talk page, and don't mix in so many other changes at the same time, or all of your work gets undone. If the small tweaks and fixes you've made don't go against any discussions on the talk page, you can reinstate that part of your edits. But anything under active discussion on the talk page is going to continue to be reverted if there's discussion with consensus. Like it or not, that's how it works on Wikipedia, and that's why it keeps happening over and over and over again to you. You're wasting your time and effort in that fight - you should focus your efforts on discussion instead.
- Id advise you to read WP:NPA too. You've already got a lot of people voicing concerns about WP:OWN and conduct in regards to sourcing and discussing conduct. Not sure you want to add "personal attacks" to the list too. Certainly not helping either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm concerned about WP:OWN too, it seems a gang of authors blocking content inclusion based on their "feelings". and aggressive reverting instead of finding compromise lines is NOT HELPING AT ALL. Shaddim (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The only "feeling" based argument was that adding a large second infobox for a minor section in an article, which is not a common practice, nor should it have resulted in any lost content, because the guidelines say everything in an infobox should already be in the article. The rest has been about policy and sources. It's too bad that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you is automatically "not helping" too - that's another mindset youre supposed to avoid on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- quite the opposite, this was a direct consequence on the community decision to merge the content back. And there was no objection until Eik Correl, a well known deletionist (he misformed the article I guess in seconds), touched the infobox in a inappropriate way. He did not notice even that after that two times the same box was in the article...this is clearly not careful, reasonable editing. Shaddim (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is your complaint really "A guy I don't agree with philosophically made edits I didn't like and then garnered a consensus I didn't agree with"? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- No complain. I implemented the decision to merge the content, whcih was consensus. Then a well known "fast-edit-without-much-care-guy" comes around makes a non-sensical edit. This raises the awarness of the crowd, which starts to make non-sensical edits too / defended this crap without much thought according to theri stomach feelings...after being called out for this crap, they went to stubborn mode and blocks any progress. (Here I can admit that my active indeed is fueled by "this can't be true, are you serious? what a bunch of hipocrites" ... diplomacy missing on my side! but what happened to self-reflection??? we should do better... ) Shaddim (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- If only there were a place, where you could explain yourself, convince others, and implement changes if everyone reflected and decided they agreed with you... Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- You are right, I failed to gather support. Mainly because I believed (naively) the issue is so glaring obvious that this can't be true, they can't resist that straight face. Well, I'm bad at politics. Shaddim (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- If only there were a place, where you could explain yourself, convince others, and implement changes if everyone reflected and decided they agreed with you... Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- No complain. I implemented the decision to merge the content, whcih was consensus. Then a well known "fast-edit-without-much-care-guy" comes around makes a non-sensical edit. This raises the awarness of the crowd, which starts to make non-sensical edits too / defended this crap without much thought according to theri stomach feelings...after being called out for this crap, they went to stubborn mode and blocks any progress. (Here I can admit that my active indeed is fueled by "this can't be true, are you serious? what a bunch of hipocrites" ... diplomacy missing on my side! but what happened to self-reflection??? we should do better... ) Shaddim (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is your complaint really "A guy I don't agree with philosophically made edits I didn't like and then garnered a consensus I didn't agree with"? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- quite the opposite, this was a direct consequence on the community decision to merge the content back. And there was no objection until Eik Correl, a well known deletionist (he misformed the article I guess in seconds), touched the infobox in a inappropriate way. He did not notice even that after that two times the same box was in the article...this is clearly not careful, reasonable editing. Shaddim (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- The only "feeling" based argument was that adding a large second infobox for a minor section in an article, which is not a common practice, nor should it have resulted in any lost content, because the guidelines say everything in an infobox should already be in the article. The rest has been about policy and sources. It's too bad that you automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you is automatically "not helping" too - that's another mindset youre supposed to avoid on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm concerned about WP:OWN too, it seems a gang of authors blocking content inclusion based on their "feelings". and aggressive reverting instead of finding compromise lines is NOT HELPING AT ALL. Shaddim (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editnotice for Yooka-Laylee
I've drafted an editnotice for Yooka-Laylee that describes the consensus reached on the Talk page over how JonTron's paragraph is written. Here is the notice in progress:
Extended content
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Markup
|
|---|
{{editnotice
| id = racist
| header = JonTron's racism
| headerstyle = font-size: 120%;
| text = Please do not change "racist" in the paragraph talking about JonTron to something else. We have a consensus on the Talk page that says this is appropriately used; please go there first before making the change. Any edits making this change without consensus will be promptly reverted.
| style = background: #f8eaba; border: 1px solid #bb7070;
| image = Ambox_important.svg
| imagesize = 40px
}} |
Would you suggest any improvements to this editnotice or is this good to go? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Jd22292 - I have no problem with it. Is the page protection basically taking care of it for now though? I didn't see an new discussions opened up on it, unless they were lumped into the old ones and I missed it or something. I don't oppose it, but, at the same time, I don't know if you've ever read the essay WP:BEANS or not, but it could be worth some consideration in this situation as well. Your call. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A goat for you!
.jpg)
This goat is yodeling (I think)
‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, didn't realize this was a thing we were giving these days. Thanks. I know you're a bit on the new-ish side, so feel free to ask questions here if you need help or opinions on anything. Sergecross73 msg me 14:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not new here Sergecross73!
I have been editing for around 2 years and I have moved/edited pages a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Probe (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not new here Sergecross73!!!!!!! I have been editing for around 2 years now!
- Well, your current account showed you as creating your account last month, and your last few page moves have been very bad decisions. I can explain why, but if you don't already know, then that's all more reason why you shouldn't be making them. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a different account back then, but I then changed it to Sonic Probe last month!!!!!!!!!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Probe (talk • contribs) 03:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, whatever, I believe you, but that's not the important part of the conversation here. The point is, your recent page moves have been very bad. Please stop doing them. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Cause the article "DanTDM, Which I changed, The reason I changed the title was that:
A. He was named TheDiamondMinecart // DanTDM, But before that he was named: "thediamondminecart" the 2nd was thediamondminecart // DanTDM and then after that he was named DanTDM.
B. I think it will work out so that it includes his older name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic Probe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- The most recent discussion, at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:DanTDM#Requested_move_14_July_2017 showed that there was a consensus to move it to DanTDM. If you want to move it, you need to start a new discussion, and only make the move if most people agree with you. Sergecross73 msg me 03:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
This might be overreacting, but
Can you please tell TheMagnificentist/Zawl to lay off stalking me? I was just creating redirects for an album (Future Friends (album)) after discussing with another editor where they got said song titles from. Absolutely nothing to do with Zawl, and then in the midst of doing so, I find Zawl has jumped in to create one of the song titles before me. I get this is probably a minor thing from where you're sitting, but after what happened last week, I think it's quite clear Zawl is a) stalking my contributions page after you told them to basically steer clear of me, and b) Doing things like this out of spite. I was fine with this mutual ignoring, however, yesterday, they created a number of redirects for songs (that showed up on my watchlist after the user Richhoncho informed me of a way to track when the R from song template, for instance, is added to pages), and saw that several were very common titles for things, so I changed where a few pointed and asked them to be a bit more mindful in future. Thought it was cool, now this. I doubt it was to "help me out" and I added no categories or templates to the page, so they would have had to have been looking at my edits right then to know I was doing it.
Sorry if this seems trivial and an overreaction; I just asked them to leave me alone on their talk page, but not sure how useful that is as they evidently don't like me and I received a convenient excuse of "the page was on my watchlist" (despite only being created yesterday and their not having edited it) and "I wanted to create redirects for the songs" despite the fact that this just happened to occur in the same minute I was creating them and their created title was the only one I had not yet done (and Zawl appears to have the habit of, upon editing an album's article and noticing it does not have redirects created for its songs, will set about creating them very soon after, so if they had known the page existed yesterday, I'm sure they would have done so already—just going off behaviour here). Sorry about all the clarifying edits to this message and its length but just one other thing: This is absolutely not a vice versa gripe about wanting to be the creator of something; that seems to be a far bigger concern of Zawl's. I just want them to get over whatever this is. Ss112 20:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Personal attack? That Future Friends page showed up on my watchlist because I happen to follow the latest albums in 2017. I noticed the edit warring or dispute about the track list and decided to redirect the songs but then most of them were already redirected except for one. You gotta stop with the accusations. Where did you get "as they evidently don't like me" from? What evidence do you have to say that? You've had the same issue with other editors (most notably with Jennica, and recently Richhoncho). Maybe it's just you having personal issues. Didn't you not come after my redirects yesterday and tried to get them deleted (by requesting move) so your redirect would be kept up? — Zawl 20:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just doing my own thing. I've moved on from last week's conflict here but it appears you're the one who hasn't. — Zawl 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Zawl, the fact you would even know what I talked to Richhoncho about and what other conflicts I've had with other editors confirms you are stalking me. (By the way, Jennica and I are friends now, so there's zero animosity, and I don't think Richhoncho cares.) I explained above and to you on your own talk page that Richhoncho told me about a way to follow when categories are added to pages. The only move request I made yesterday after noticing your redirects was one of UpLate over your created Up Late (and I didn't even create "UpLate" anyway, so there is no page yesterday you and I edited where I am now the creator—as if I even give a hoot to "take" credit from you); otherwise I don't know what you're referring to. I noticed you had done this in the same minute I was creating a few redirects for songs to an article you had not even edited after it was only created yesterday, and in combination with your professed dislike and criticism of me through email, you expect me to believe you're over it and that this is just coincidence? Please. Don't even try to turn this back around on me. Regardless, Sergecross does not want to read us bickering, so please stop. Ss112 20:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: Zawl has requested speedy deletion of a page I created to make way for another he has contributed substantially to, but I'm getting accused of being the one scheming to remove his "credit" for articles and it's all in my head. Holy moly. I am sorry to drag you into this drama Sergecross but this just appears black and white to me. Ss112 21:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- The only reason I know about your conflict with Richhoncho was because you told me yesterday on my talk page, and Jennica because of an ANI discussion in the past where we were all involved. I copied pages from Category:2017 albums and 2018 to my watchlist hours ago to work on new album pages. Future Friends showed up then I looked at the "What links here" tab to see which titles need to be redirected. Keep Me Coming was the only one without a redirect so I created it as the title was generic and would help readers to get to the album page easier. Few minutes later you showed on my talk page implying you're upset for not being able to redirect that song. And now we're here. That's what happened. I don't know what's your obsession with arguing with me for over the smallest things but it has to stop. The More Mess page was in the wrong mainspace, someone had to take care of it. — Zawl 21:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I told you I talked to Richhoncho, not what about, so you must have followed up on that. I've already reiterated at least three times now that this requires too big a suspension of disbelief for me to believe you chose to do so right when I was doing so. If you were an editor I didn't know I might believe it were coincidence and wouldn't be "accusing"; given our history, I don't think it is. You chose Future Friends (album) to create redirects for, out of 873 pages on Category:2017 albums, the same minute I did? Dude, I'm trying to remain civil here, but who are you expecting to fall for this? Ss112 21:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't choose. That page appeared on my watchlist because someone edited it at that time. You clearly know what I'm talking about but pretending not to. I clicked the "What Links Here" tab on the Future Friends article not the 2017 albums category. You're just trying to put me in bad light by regularly commenting incorrect things about Wikipedia functions even when you know how they work. — Zawl 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not pretending to not know anything and I'm about done with arguing. Even if what you just said was true (you added 800+ pages to your watchlist? Sure, okay), you would have been aware if that page showed up on your watchlist that I was the one who had just edited it, so if we are to believe you avoided my contributions page, you then typed out all the redirects for songs for that album and found one that had not yet been created (and didn't look to see who made all the others and when?), then created it in the same minute I had made the others before I could... This is in addition to what Sergecross knows you said via email and what you have done in the past. I just want to make it clear this is not a gripe about me not "receiving credit" on one little redirect. I'm pointing out this major coincidence occurred with you of all editors after you were told this issue with me/my redirects needed to be "dropped 100%". It clearly hasn't been dropped 100% because you quite clearly deliberately jumped in ahead of me to do something before I could; that's hounding (inhibiting what others do), which is what Sergecross told you to drop. Ss112 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- The past has nothing to do with this. Just because you think that way, doesn't mean it's true. I copypasted the titles instead of typing them out, making it much quicker. I didn't bother to see who created the redirects because it's none of my business. Why do you judge me when you don't know me? Why do you think you know my personality and behavior so well? What happened last week was over, this is clearly a whole different topic which you brought up in the form of unnecessary accusations. You could have just ignored it but no, you wanted to provoke me anyways to continue this drama (to get me blocked so you wouldn't have any "redirect competitors"). I just skip usernames next to page titles because that's not important to me. — Zawl 21:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not pretending to not know anything and I'm about done with arguing. Even if what you just said was true (you added 800+ pages to your watchlist? Sure, okay), you would have been aware if that page showed up on your watchlist that I was the one who had just edited it, so if we are to believe you avoided my contributions page, you then typed out all the redirects for songs for that album and found one that had not yet been created (and didn't look to see who made all the others and when?), then created it in the same minute I had made the others before I could... This is in addition to what Sergecross knows you said via email and what you have done in the past. I just want to make it clear this is not a gripe about me not "receiving credit" on one little redirect. I'm pointing out this major coincidence occurred with you of all editors after you were told this issue with me/my redirects needed to be "dropped 100%". It clearly hasn't been dropped 100% because you quite clearly deliberately jumped in ahead of me to do something before I could; that's hounding (inhibiting what others do), which is what Sergecross told you to drop. Ss112 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't choose. That page appeared on my watchlist because someone edited it at that time. You clearly know what I'm talking about but pretending not to. I clicked the "What Links Here" tab on the Future Friends article not the 2017 albums category. You're just trying to put me in bad light by regularly commenting incorrect things about Wikipedia functions even when you know how they work. — Zawl 21:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I told you I talked to Richhoncho, not what about, so you must have followed up on that. I've already reiterated at least three times now that this requires too big a suspension of disbelief for me to believe you chose to do so right when I was doing so. If you were an editor I didn't know I might believe it were coincidence and wouldn't be "accusing"; given our history, I don't think it is. You chose Future Friends (album) to create redirects for, out of 873 pages on Category:2017 albums, the same minute I did? Dude, I'm trying to remain civil here, but who are you expecting to fall for this? Ss112 21:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- The only reason I know about your conflict with Richhoncho was because you told me yesterday on my talk page, and Jennica because of an ANI discussion in the past where we were all involved. I copied pages from Category:2017 albums and 2018 to my watchlist hours ago to work on new album pages. Future Friends showed up then I looked at the "What links here" tab to see which titles need to be redirected. Keep Me Coming was the only one without a redirect so I created it as the title was generic and would help readers to get to the album page easier. Few minutes later you showed on my talk page implying you're upset for not being able to redirect that song. And now we're here. That's what happened. I don't know what's your obsession with arguing with me for over the smallest things but it has to stop. The More Mess page was in the wrong mainspace, someone had to take care of it. — Zawl 21:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Edit: Zawl has requested speedy deletion of a page I created to make way for another he has contributed substantially to, but I'm getting accused of being the one scheming to remove his "credit" for articles and it's all in my head. Holy moly. I am sorry to drag you into this drama Sergecross but this just appears black and white to me. Ss112 21:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- Zawl, the fact you would even know what I talked to Richhoncho about and what other conflicts I've had with other editors confirms you are stalking me. (By the way, Jennica and I are friends now, so there's zero animosity, and I don't think Richhoncho cares.) I explained above and to you on your own talk page that Richhoncho told me about a way to follow when categories are added to pages. The only move request I made yesterday after noticing your redirects was one of UpLate over your created Up Late (and I didn't even create "UpLate" anyway, so there is no page yesterday you and I edited where I am now the creator—as if I even give a hoot to "take" credit from you); otherwise I don't know what you're referring to. I noticed you had done this in the same minute I was creating a few redirects for songs to an article you had not even edited after it was only created yesterday, and in combination with your professed dislike and criticism of me through email, you expect me to believe you're over it and that this is just coincidence? Please. Don't even try to turn this back around on me. Regardless, Sergecross does not want to read us bickering, so please stop. Ss112 20:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'm just doing my own thing. I've moved on from last week's conflict here but it appears you're the one who hasn't. — Zawl 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
You just said above that you used the "what links here" function, which would have shown who made all the others—myself—and when—right as you were looking at it, and now you're saying you copypasted all of the song titles after what I said. Which is it? Dude, truly, this is a game to you—"redirect competitor"? What are you on about? The only person who has ever cared this much about receiving "credit" for a page is you, as you have confirmed in an email and not denied having said so on this page. I have never proclaimed such a thing (my issue is with the WP:GAME tactics), and my intention in bringing this up is not to "get you blocked". It's to get you to leave me alone because I don't believe for a second this is coincidence given your very recent past (that's how I "know your behavior"). If you want to continue defending yourself, go right ahead. This is already far too long and Sergecross would have received like 50 notifications by now, which would be very annoying. Ss112 22:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- What Links Here doesn't show the person who create redirects. Again, you're pretending. I already said I've moved on from the last week's conflict. — Zawl 22:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake; I was thinking of "related changes", not "what links here". This isn't a conspiracy to get you blocked, dude, so I'm not "pretending" anything; one mistake doesn't discredit all my other points. Now for God's sake, we need to let Sergecross catch up and come to his own conclusion about what's happened here. Ss112 22:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Look, I recommend you both take up a voluntary 2 way interaction ban now, because I know where this leads if you don't cut it out with this crap - ANI threads that'll likely lead to both if you receiving blocks for exasperating the community's patience. Stop monkeying around with each other. You both obviously have the same goal - expanding the encyclopedia. So please do it separate from one another. If you've got a secondary are of interest (for example, I alternate between video games and music) then please do the other one for a bit (assuming you both don't have the same secondary interest somehow.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't wish to have an IBAN (voluntary or otherwise) because of what happens if you're interpreted as "breaching" them, but I already was trying to limit contact as much as possible—I just felt the notification on Zawl's talk page yesterday of being careful with common names when making redirects needed to be said, and was happy to leave it at that. I was already trying to limit contact until I saw this, which left me feeling I was still being hounded by somebody you asked to drop it. I get this is a long thread and tests patience, but that's all this is to me, not a matter of "he created something before me". I just wish there to be no more convenient creation of pages I'm in the process of creating right before I get to them by somebody who has all but professed to disliking me. I'm happy to go on as I was before, and I hope Zawl takes the hint to stop following others, even if they don't want to admit it, and does too. Ss112 02:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, surely disregarding my advice and talking about him will bring the change you desire. If you're not taking my advice, take it somewhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sergecross, I do appreciate you trying to sort it out, but surely you know IBANs never work out well and are overly restrictive. I don't think that is the only (or best) solution. Users I know who have been the subject of IBANs (Hijiri88, namely, having spoken with them) have said to avoid them at all costs or would not recommend it. So I really am trying to avoid getting into such a situation. Ss112 03:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- A voluntary interaction ban unofficially done like this is nothing more than just not talking to each other. Which would solve all of the problems here. I mean, cone on, it's not like action can be taken over creating a redirect you were thinking about doing yourself. What you both really need to do is go about your business and pretend you don't know each other. And for the love of god, both of you need to understand: It doesn't matter who creates redirects. I can't stress this enough to both of you. No. One. Cares. That'd solve the other half of the troubles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Okay then, I'm fine with the not speaking part. I didn't expect "action" to really be taken over a redirect, as I said multiple times not doing it myself is not the thing I cared about (and I turned said redirect into a dab page earlier anyway, as Google search results showed it was also the name of a Kiss song and so on)—it was more that it very much appeared I was being followed/"hounded". Even though I do create quite a few redirects myself, I agree that the Wikipedia community for the most part does not care about such a thing—nobody congratulates others e.g. "Wow, good work on getting there first!", and one can hardly take "credit" for merely being the first to create a page name which is often overwritten by drafts or page moves anyway. It's like being first to comment on a YouTube video—nobody really cares in the end. Anyway, if that's all "voluntary interaction ban" in this instance means, I'm in agreeance. Ss112 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't mean that the work you do doesn't matter. The redirects you guys create are usually valid and/or good placeholders until a real article is written. It's good work you both do. I just mean the stat-tracking side you guys seems obsessed over. No one cares whether your redirect count is 1392 or 1391. So there's no need to quibble over who does redirects first like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't mean to keep this going or to argue, but I just want to state again: this was not about who created a redirect first. Yes, this thread was inspired by my having noticed that, but I don't really care about not having done it. My problem was with being followed, hence why I stated several times that I Was being "hounded". Ss112 15:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know, but virtually every single one of the issues between the two of you, indirectly traces back to that though. While I think it'd be in Zawl's best interest if didn't follow your edits at all, technically, even the scenario you're hypothesizing above is true - that he read your comment, and then make a constructive edit before you were able, probably wouldn't be a violation of anything. And if you understood that "redirect count" is meaningless, then you shouldn't be bothered. It's merely one less thing you had to do. It would be like if I got mad at Ferret when he blocks a vandal reported to my talk page. I'm not upset because it lowers my "block count", I know that "block counts" don't matter, and I'm happy that he got it taken care of faster, and it was one less task I had to take the time to do. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know they don't matter, but I still feel you're misunderstanding me: I have asked several other editors not to follow my edits in the past (after it's been made clear that they indeed have been), and they didn't create redirects, so that's not what my problem with being followed is. Ss112 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm saying, if he's following you, but not doing anything wrong, there's nothing actionable. It'd be one thing if he was excessively arguing with you through talk page messages or emails, or singling out your articles for AFD nominations or something, it'd be a problem. But seeing something you wrote in public forum, and then doing it himself, is not one of those actionable events. It wouldn't even really violate an interaction ban, as no direct interaction even took place. Regardless, it seems you've both agreed to this temporary, unofficial, voluntary interaction ban until October. Hopefully that will be enough for both of you to get "unstuck" from this issue... Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know they don't matter, but I still feel you're misunderstanding me: I have asked several other editors not to follow my edits in the past (after it's been made clear that they indeed have been), and they didn't create redirects, so that's not what my problem with being followed is. Ss112 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I know, but virtually every single one of the issues between the two of you, indirectly traces back to that though. While I think it'd be in Zawl's best interest if didn't follow your edits at all, technically, even the scenario you're hypothesizing above is true - that he read your comment, and then make a constructive edit before you were able, probably wouldn't be a violation of anything. And if you understood that "redirect count" is meaningless, then you shouldn't be bothered. It's merely one less thing you had to do. It would be like if I got mad at Ferret when he blocks a vandal reported to my talk page. I'm not upset because it lowers my "block count", I know that "block counts" don't matter, and I'm happy that he got it taken care of faster, and it was one less task I had to take the time to do. Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't mean to keep this going or to argue, but I just want to state again: this was not about who created a redirect first. Yes, this thread was inspired by my having noticed that, but I don't really care about not having done it. My problem was with being followed, hence why I stated several times that I Was being "hounded". Ss112 15:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't mean that the work you do doesn't matter. The redirects you guys create are usually valid and/or good placeholders until a real article is written. It's good work you both do. I just mean the stat-tracking side you guys seems obsessed over. No one cares whether your redirect count is 1392 or 1391. So there's no need to quibble over who does redirects first like this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
- Okay then, I'm fine with the not speaking part. I didn't expect "action" to really be taken over a redirect, as I said multiple times not doing it myself is not the thing I cared about (and I turned said redirect into a dab page earlier anyway, as Google search results showed it was also the name of a Kiss song and so on)—it was more that it very much appeared I was being followed/"hounded". Even though I do create quite a few redirects myself, I agree that the Wikipedia community for the most part does not care about such a thing—nobody congratulates others e.g. "Wow, good work on getting there first!", and one can hardly take "credit" for merely being the first to create a page name which is often overwritten by drafts or page moves anyway. It's like being first to comment on a YouTube video—nobody really cares in the end. Anyway, if that's all "voluntary interaction ban" in this instance means, I'm in agreeance. Ss112 03:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- A voluntary interaction ban unofficially done like this is nothing more than just not talking to each other. Which would solve all of the problems here. I mean, cone on, it's not like action can be taken over creating a redirect you were thinking about doing yourself. What you both really need to do is go about your business and pretend you don't know each other. And for the love of god, both of you need to understand: It doesn't matter who creates redirects. I can't stress this enough to both of you. No. One. Cares. That'd solve the other half of the troubles. Sergecross73 msg me 03:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sergecross, I do appreciate you trying to sort it out, but surely you know IBANs never work out well and are overly restrictive. I don't think that is the only (or best) solution. Users I know who have been the subject of IBANs (Hijiri88, namely, having spoken with them) have said to avoid them at all costs or would not recommend it. So I really am trying to avoid getting into such a situation. Ss112 03:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, surely disregarding my advice and talking about him will bring the change you desire. If you're not taking my advice, take it somewhere else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with the unofficial voluntary interaction ban, but what would happen if either one of us breach the ban? — Zawl 09:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- It'll depend on the extent of the interaction. Hopefully we'll never need to know. :) And it doesn't have to be until forever. Let's just make it be until October, so you guys can cool down and do your own thing for a while. Sergecross73 msg me 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)