User talk:Sergecross73/Archive 22

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 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

I recommend deleting this image, including File:Stone Temple Pilots Out Of Time.jpg. The very first image I uploaded for the Out of Time (Stone Temple Pilots song) article is being currently used with permission. The file that Theo's Little Bot uploaded for the article in the past is absolutely not the right image because it only has an STP logo on it, and it is not used on iTunes anymore since the single posting for "Out of Time" is already deleted from the website, and just takes you straight to High Rise that's currently available on iTunes for purchase. Thank you, Serge. Skylar3214 2:39, 24 July 2014

Hi Skylar. I believe you can nominate images for deletion just like you would an article. I'd recommend that, partially because image policy is an area I'm less of an expert in, and partially because, while deletion may be the right choice, I don't know if it's bad enough for me to speedy delete like that. See if you can figure out nominating it for deletion. I can try to look it up if you're completely stuck. Sergecross73 msg me 03:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try to look it up for me? I'm completely stuck with that part. Skylar3214 1:59, 25 July 2014

Yes, I will soon Sergecross73 msg me 23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder, would this be a reason to delete it. Do any of my (talk page stalker) know? Salvidrim? ThomasO1989? Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree. The image is not currently used in the article it was intended to be for (or any articles for that matter), which makes it a fair candidate for deletion on that grounds alone. Whether or not the image itself is useful if it had been included in the article... there already exists a fair-use image that appears to more closely related to the subject, so this image would be redundant. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I never actually got that ping, Serge; I just put the old one up for deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It should have been deleted after yesterday (August 4, 2014), and it's still there? Skylar3214 3:28, 5 August 2014

I think it's gone now, skylar3214. It takes seven days to be tagged to be ready for deletion, but then it takes a little more time for an actual human to work through them too, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Serge. I mostly appreciate it for the file to be deleted. If anyone else uploads it again, then it will be redone. Skylar3214 5:53, 5 August 2014

No problem. If it's re-uploaded, and not used anywhere, then I think I can speedy delete it. (That's how it works when articles are recreated with no change after a deletion, at least.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's starting again, see the article edit history for Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA 2nd. If you could help out here, it would be great. Affected articles include Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA Extend, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA 2nd, Hatsune Miku: Project DIVA (video game), and other Hatsune Miku articles; the IPs involved seem to rotate each time. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember those discussions. Protected all three. Let me know if it comes up elsewhere. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just visited GearBox Software to edit in their most recent lawsuit however it appears all my past contributions to the page have been edited out. Interestingly the page is being heavily edited by IPs rather than registered users. It also appears most of the criticism if not all of it has been cleansed. I trust you are the man who will address this issue?--Cube b3 (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In theory, yes, this the type of thing I could help with. However, no one has edited the article in almost 2 weeks, and there are no on-going arguments on the talk page or anything. I don't think you'd run into much opposition honestly. I'd recommend you taking a stab at it, and then come to me if you feel you are coming into opposition you feel is being wrongly handled. Sergecross73 msg me 10:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that I discuss this issue in the talk page first? Because I don't have the energy to go back through the articles history and copy paste all my edits into the new one.--Cube b3 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a very active page. I'd re-apply your changes, and discuss on the talk page if they're removed again. I'll step on if you feel people aren't making policy-based decisions. It looks so inactive I don't think I especially need to get involved as an admin, and I'm not especially knowledgeable about their lawsuits or history, so it'd probably be better if someone more knowledgable, like yourself, made the changes. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I spent about a whole hour editing the Gearbox article. I have added all the controversial stuff back complete with corresponding references matched by WP:VG/RS.

I realize this sort of censorship happens over long intervals, but I don't plan on watching GBS like a hawk. I really don't care for it at all but I don't like the idea of companies hiding notable criticisms. I am positive that many of the edits by unregistered users are employees or executives from the studio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.65.108.134

As you can see many of these ips have only edited Gearbox articles. I have requested in the talk page for unregistered users to stop deleting stuff from the article. If this continues I would request we block unregistered users from editing. best regards--Cube b3 (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sir. Am just too young to issue a warnning to an highly experienced, distinguish administrator like you sir. Your recent edit at WP:Articles for deletion/Sonic Highways (album) had a minor error sir which I had corrected. You can check the edit history for verification sir. But I understand that mistake is inevitable in life. Cheers Wikicology (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I thank you for correcting it, though I'm not sure why you'd feel it necessary to warn me over it a simple typo that was obviously accidental and led to zero miscommunications.... Sergecross73 msg me 22:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've put the Tales series article up for GA review. I need help looking through to do copyediting and such. Can you help please? The whole thing feels extremely daunting to me alone. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for not helping you in your recent efforts. I will try to help with this, but I'm on vacation until Sunsay so I am relegated to what I can do on a mobile phone in the meantime. I'll try to help though. Sergecross73 msg me 01:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The song Powerless is a promotional single according to the article. But on iTunes-Japan the song is said to be released as a Single, and iTunes is supposed to be a reliable source. Please reply a answer if I am wrong please correct me. Thank you. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 05:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem with citing iTunes isn't that it's not reliable (what else would be more reliable concerning an iTunes release?); it's that listings for singles are frequently deleted and redirected to the main album as soon as (or even before) it is released. I've never tried hitting up web.archive.org for iTunes, but that's about your only shot at a stable iTunes reference. Tezero (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Does iTunes ever distinguish between single and promotional single though? Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't mind about Powerless being a promotional single, and it's going to stay as a promotional single. The website Golu gave you (Serge) is in Japanese, and it can be translated so easily. The title isn't right when translated, so it's staying as a promotional single. Skylar3214 11:46, 15 August 2014

If you all say its a promotional single, It's ok. I'm wrong then. The reason why I made you all bother about this is promotional single is a song which is distributed for free as a stream or at radio station, but here Powerless is being costed for about 250 Yens. So I was confused about it. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 05:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond so I'll post this here. You can delete if when you've read it. The lead singer is in a band called Codec (Facebook search: Codec Band) and their bio states they broke up in 2010 I think it was. I messaged them a while back and they said via MySpace message that they'd broken up.

Sergecross73, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013! I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :) Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

Sorry, maybe I am too sensitive. My recent edition focused on Luo but it is because of the discussion. Actually,I am also surprised about that. In my previous plan,I just want to spend maybe 1 or 2 in that article. The discussion is beyond my plan. I am not admin so do not spend much time for edition in wiki. I may edit one or two article per a day or even spend a week for one article. This two weeks I spend all time for the discussion so my recent edition is all about this. Actually I do not feel there is something wrong with Wikipedia policy. I think the problem is the list of source in wiki video game project is more about video game and there is no source about e-sports here. Thus I think Viedo game project group may need to add more online source about e-sports as the reliable sources. Then I see you and another admin think about merging article Luo in another article but you don't discuss this anymore. I have stated my opinion and don't want to join the discussion how to merge or other kind of way to deal with anymore. Sorry to disturb and thanks for your explain.Miracle dream (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014‎

I will be in contact with the band if there is new information. Stayheredusttodust (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2014

On that post that I made earlier, I had said: "here's an another biased opinion: __________________________________________". I said at least I didn't wish death upon them, and if I did, it was the emotions that I had displayed on that particular topic. I also said: I shouldn't say this, but I wish that I want them to be dead (in my opinion). So I had two sentences, and they were all about biased and I my thoughts and opinions on Nickelback being dead. Either way, it was wrong of me to do such things on Wikipedia, of all things... yeah, that's atrocious. There you go, my friend, I'm taking full responsibility of what I posted and said, and I'm not going to argue and say some bullshit just to get out of the trouble that I did; I'm not 14 again. Sorry about that. panicpack121 14:31, 19 April 2014.

Hey Sergecross73 - I would like the chance to talk to you privately about our wikipedia page. I voiced my opinion on the talk page a few times in the past because this is my career and passion being spoken about. I have some things you should hear directly from me, the founder of the band. I’m not asking you to make any edits or changes on my behalf. I just want you to hear me out in private to better understand the situation. It’s easy to make this happen officially so you know you're actually talking to me. If you follow the verified cash cash twitter and tweet at us, I will follow you back and dm you my personal contact info. I just want to express my concerns directly and privately with you. That is all I ask. I would appreciate that a lot. Hope to talk with you soon. Thanks for your time. *Jean Paul* — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPcashcash (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what would be needed to be discussed in private. If it is about a legitimate direction for the band's article, then it should be discussed in the open.

• That being said, I understand the stance of the band and your "helpers" on the talk page. I'm well versed in the music world, I get it. There's lots of times where band's aren't exactly thrilled about their original sound, or try to distance themselves from a genre that has fallen out of mainstream popularity. I'm sure Alice in Chains isn't especially thrilled with their beginnings where they were lumped into the glam metal movement. Linkin Park has gone out of their way to distance themselves from their original nu metal sound. Same as Sugar Ray as they went from alternative metal to pop rock. There's no problem with that, whether it be changing of musical interest, trying to make it big, money, whatever. And its fine to change your image, your Facebook page, your Twitter, whatever marketing and communicating tool of your choice. But it's not alright to do that on Wikipedia. You must understand - Wikipedia is not a tool for advertising. You have a Conflict of Interest when it comes to your own Wikipedia article. It is not for you to be documenting. The entire basis of the website is to document what is said about a subject through reliable, third party sources. First party accounts can be a source for small, non-contentious details, like whether or not you played a certain concert or something, but they're not to be used in the interpreting the general history or career of a topic. That's the role of third party sources.
• That brings us to the recurring issues with the article. Two very prominent, reliable third party sources, have referred to the band's sound as emo pop. I understand you guys are moving more into an EDM direction. And that's fine. And you can distance yourself from that as much as you please, in your concerts, Youtube account, social media, whatever. But on Wikipedia, that's not valid grounds for removing what two prominent reliable sources have said in the past. Other editors may add more information on the band's sound section, citing other reliable sources who use other descriptors for the band, to make "emo-pop" seem like less of a prominent viewpoint. (I've even suggested this, though no one took me up on it. WP:ALBUM/REVSIT is a place where a bunch of acceptable sources are listed.) But you can't just remove it because you don't like it, or its not helping your new direction, or anything else related to your vision of the band.
• While I've assumed this is in regards to the emo pop arguments, this response could generally be applied to any of the on-going arguments at the talk page.
• Anyways, let me know if you have other questions or concerns, though I'd prefer to keep our discussions on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Surely there's a way to compromise. Is it still a thing to write it out like "Emo pop (early years), EDM"? Tezero (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Tezero, If you check the article, you'll see that emo pop is not mentioned at all in the lead or the infobox. It's just a sentence or two in the "Musical style" section of prose towards the bottom of the article, where its clearly talking about their earlier work. Sourced by both Allmusic (in the prose) and Popmatters, both deemed useable at WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. (That's pretty much the music equivalent of GameSpot and IGN saying it in the video game world.) The compromise you're suggesting is already pretty much in effect, if anything, more in their favor. Sergecross73 msg me 16:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, okay. Well... emo pop isn't necessarily a bad thing. Tezero (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Haha, yes, that's a point that has been brought up as well. Thank you for another voice on the matter. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		Thank you.Yakushima (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

and for good measure:

Thank you. All the admin/BLP type discussions have become a little draining at the moment, so the kind words are appreciated. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• User:BGC is problematic. This user has a history of writing editorializations, of constantly changing tons of factoids such as dates without any comment or citation, of edit warring, and of refusing and blanking from his talk page any discussion whatsoever. It's driven some people batty [1]. Just take a look at the contribution list and the constantly blanked Talk page history to see what I mean. I couldn't even begin to guess whether the dates were correct before or after his edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey there. Would you mind helping out? This user is going to every single article with the wikilink Luigi and unnecessarily changing it to Luigi (character), which actually goes to Luigi (disambiguation), which is completely counter-intuitive to his goal. While I am assuming good faith, he is also providing a broken link in many articles, so I would consider this disruptive behavior. Would you mind intervening? I would go revert everything myself, but I was wondering if you have access to a tool that reverts most changes by a single user that would make this quicker. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like he's already changing it back? Check out the Mario talk page though, it explains what he was trying to do. You may want to give some input there. Sergecross73 msg me 10:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

As a BTW, I've reverted the edits he didn't self-revert yet, and supplied an explanation on his talkpage as well. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I found a few as well, and left some comments for him at the Mario talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Stick Man:User_talk:Prisencolinensinainciusol The guy that has just been group-reprimanded on Mario, is an absolute warpath of crap-slinging behavior across the site. Even just from the last month or two, his talk page is an endless litany of exactly the same and totally obvious complaints. He constantly admits to committing the same constant major and minor errors with staggering levels of willful obliviousness and unilaterally disruptiveness, and then asks how to stop being notified of them. Including the very same junk you just saw him nailed for. I am flabbergasted. Heck, he unilaterally deleted a deletion notice, in blatant defiance of a discussion! Just look at what poor User:The Stick Man has put up with, in an elaborately futile attempt at personal rehabilitation.  :( Just imagine what it'd take, to check all his edits for fallout damage. This seems like a candidate for at least a short term block just as an escalated wake-up call, because he's been given countless ones already. I think this is the height of WP:TENDENTIOUS, under the category of widespread disruptive editing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is so bad that I'm even considering AIV; yes I know the ramifications of what I just said, lol ;-) but he absolutely must be stopped. :-< Big sad face here, Serge. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to Prisen lately and was under the impression that, besides the countless number of bot messages that he at least tried to address, he was at least improving in less trivial areas (relatively speaking, of course). If it's true that he's still being disruptive after all this time, then I'd agree that a short-term ban would be necessary, and would support a much longer one if he continued his behavior. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Stick Man: You were unbelievably charitable and tolerant and logical for a very long time, that's for sure! I didn't even look into his editing history to see if his warpath (bot-reported or human-reported or unreported) had been addressed. He darn well had better do it. My goodness I've never seen so many error messages, and I've never seen anyone regard the error messages as being the problem. Are you saying that he fixed them?  :( — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 12:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If a bot leaves a message for him then I've found that he does go back and fix it later, usually. My issues with him (early on, at least) were more along the lines of "Don't use sources to cite things when the sources don't support what you said", "Stop writing in bad English", etc. He hasn't been editing the articles I have on my watchlist recently (some current-ish stuff I have seen from him have been harmless/actually kind of helpful), and I don't watch his talk page, so I don't know what he's up to these days. If his behavior is still troublesome, I'd back a ban.

I should also mention that he has received a 6-month ban on a different wiki for disruptive behavior after having already received two two-week bans. I'd link it here but that site requires users to use their real names, and I don't think would be right for me to reveal his. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm looking into his edits. I'll keep adding thoughts.

• Regarding the Luigi/Mario stuff, it looks like its mostly been cleaned up at least, and he's not gaining any sort of consensus at the Mario or Luigi move discussion, so I think that one is resolved unless he starts going against consensus there. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Smuckola, which deletion notice did he remove? Was it this one? Because you're actually allowed to remove WP:PROD's, that's how people contest them. It's not great that he didn't leave any rationale anywhere, especially if he's the article creator, but its technically allowable. (Though actions like that will probably backfire on him if it gets taken to WP:AFD.) Anyways, if you were talking about a different edit, then nevermind all that, and let me know which one you were talking about. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:Yes that's the one, so never mind. ^_^ Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Overall, it looks like he's making some mistakes (changing wiki-links before the article is actually moved, missing a lot of brackets, etc) but I don't believe its anything blockable really. He could be warned to be a little more careful, but I don't think its at WP:COMPETENCE levels of concern, and it seems that he's trying to fix his mistakes and adhere to consensus once they do pop up. I'd say keep an eye on him, because if he becomes obstinate or combative, I think it'd be a different story. But right now, just keep an eye out, and let me know. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My latest news post summaries all the coverage the game has received from American tv channels to Russian websites. http://www.seganerds.com/2014/08/24/elysian-shadows-kickstarter-funded-150k-goal-reached/

Check out the hyperlinks for more info--Cube b3 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

...I'll look into it... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do, I am pretty busy during the week with my real life job (you know the one that pays), so I want to work on the page on the weekend. I think national television coverage makes it fairly notable. Also the Kickstarter is funded.--Cube b3 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

http://kotaku.com/a-16-bit-rpg-that-promises-a-modern-twist-1626228329?fb_action_ids=10152660044382464&fb_action_types=og.likes

Why don't you go state your case, and list off all of your sources at the main talk page at WP:VG. If there's a consensus that the sourcing meets the GNG now, then I'll unsalt the article. It can be a good way to get all your stuff together if it goes alright. If not, then it can be a good starting point for a future "Resurrection 4.0". (Though I think the community is getting tired of discussing it, so I certainly wouldn't recommend a 4.0 any time soon. Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've pledged my case, I have regularly updated the page in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cube_b3/Elysian_Shadows

Honestly, I am much more exhausted then you and I really do not enjoy working on a page that I had perfected the first time I created it and I much rather other fans continue to update it. I want to work on other upcoming Dreamcast games. It is also very hard dealing with admins who are completely oblivious to Dreamcast and Ouya because the game has been at the top of those platforms charts and websites for months. If you can get a few Ouya and Dreamcast websites on the list of approved references it would make your job easier.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, if it was perfected the first time, then it wouldn't have been deleted multiple times. It's also not my fault that the Dreamcast/Ouya sources you have suggested so far do not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Life would be easier if you took the time to learn how things work around here. You seem more interested in fighting things every step of the way... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It has only been deleted twice. The first time you all had a point that I understood. The page was constructed with primary references. I created a second page with secondary ones from the approved list but you took out technicalities such as oh there is a press release in there. Now I have even addressed those technicalities.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't realize that a press release is first party information? Sergecross73 msg me 10:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

What I didn't realize was that sharing something doesn't make it a secondary reference. Apparently a website has to paraphrase the press release in order for it's notability to be elevated and honestly I understand it, but don't agree with it. If a notable institution has chosen to share that information shouldn't it do the trick. What difference does it make? Not arguing or being aggressive help me rap my head around it.--Cube b3 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Conceptually, it's just not third party. Beyond that, we don't want to be writing articles based off of press releases anyways because Wikipedia isn't a place for advertisement. Its okay to use press releases for small details, (release dates, for example) but you don't want to base an article heavily off of it or it'll start to sounds like one big ad. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree, we don't want advertising. We want objective information however that is where our rewriting comes in. I think if a reliable source had shared the press release that is enough now it is our job to write an article that does not come across as an advertisement.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. Could you delete these two following special pages for me? Those two include User:Skylar3214/Part Major and User:Skylar3214/Black Heart (Stone Temple Pilots song). Obviously, they're of no use to me at all. No topic for my rap project, "Part Major", has been covered or resourceful since I blanked it and made a decision to have it gone. The second special page for the Stone Temple Pilots song "Black Heart" already has an article since I have a couple resources still on the article itself. I'd do it myself, but I'm no administrator, only a Wikipedia user. Thank you. Hope you take care of those two problems for me? Skylar3214 8:48, 26 August 2014

@Skylar3214: Hey dood. FYI, all ya gotta do is add this to the page: {{db|1=obsolete draft}}. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Smuckola. Skylar, I've deleted them myself this time, but you can always do it Smuckola's way in the future if you want, or if I'm not around or something. Either way is fine. FYI, I believe citing speedy deletion rationale WP:CSD#U1 would apply as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am very much appreciated. Skylar3214 12:02, 27 August 2014

hello my name is Alvaro, the edit page of Shinedown is news that the band has posted on Facebook about his new album # Shinedown5 thanks. Stayheredusttodust (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014

That's fine if its announced and there's sources to support it. But you didn't add any content or sources, you just made a new subsection with nothing in it. You need to wait until there's actually information before making a new subsection, that's all. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I cited the original Zoe Quinn scandal blog post and the Reddit post because they were referenced in the reliable sources and were the original sources of the claims reported on by the reliable sources; the Reddit post was the specific post which was noted in the reliable source and was about the removal of the posts, and ergo, strikes me as being perfectly acceptable to cite as it is the original post being cited explaining the removal. This certainly seems appropriate to me, and other articles link to press releases by organizations, which this resembles.

The blog post was cited by all the RS's on the subject matter as the source for their claims, and thus I felt that it was legitimate to link to given that it is the original source of the claims which all the RS's were reporting on. If you feel that I should remove that cite, that's fine. Titanium Dragon (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, someone rev-del'ed your edits, so my concerns were not off base... Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming whoever did it was right. We commoners will never know. Tezero (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw it. It was the right choice. I probably would have done the same had I the time at that given moment, but I was on my way out then. It was filled with Reddit posts and blogspots as sources. The most basic failings of not using an RS on a BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to you thanking me for the edit on the Tales series article, that is just the start. I'm planning and gradually performing a major remodel and general fixing of the article to stop it languishing in "start" class. Any help you cna give in that department would be greatly appreciated, if you are actually interested in the Tales series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ProtoDrake, I actually was the one who had cleaned it up to how it is now - prior to my edits, it was an unsourced, unorganized mass of fan cruft, a few years ago. I will try to keep helping with it. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I've done a huge edit on it. It's taken days using my sandbox to create it, and there are probably still fillable gaps. But I am feeling exhausted and frankly tired of working on the article, and doing giant article revamps (I think I've done... three to five over the past half-year, and one of them involved getting an article from "Start" to "Featured" class during that period). Perhaps someone else could manage tidying up and the Reception section? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

ProtoDrake I totally get it. It's the reason I hadn't gotten farther than I did when I took it on years ago myself - it's a massive undertaking, not to mention it's more difficult than handling a single game because there's so much different content to cover, and harder to find examples of other ones done well too. I also went through a phase of lessened interest on the series because no games were being released for my preferred systems. Perhaps Tales of Hearts impending release will change that, and I'll pick up where you left off. Thanks for doing what you could. I'll at least be there maintaining it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73 Update: done a massive update on the reception section, done some editing on the lead and archived the 1Up references as that site is threatening to go down permanently soon. Am going to the WikiProject to see what rating it merits now: we can at least get it off Start. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

On a related note: I'm planning some work on Tales of Hearts, in light of it being released fairly soon. I've just gotten started in my sandbox, and if you could provide some references for me about the game's development and reception. I heard that at least Hearts R was reviewed by Dengeki (not sure about the DS version of Hearts), but I haven't found any direct references. If you could help me with that, I would be very grateful. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm excited about its release too. I've been watching it and making some small edits on it since it was announced for English localization. I don't know how much time I'll have short term to do major work on it, but I'll definitely help maintain it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The series article has been promoted to GA. You were a definite source of encouragement. :) --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Serge. How are you doing? I have a bit of a concern here. I feel that it was partially my fault for causing the situation with Lucia Black in the first place. I know I was trying to help her but in the end, she felt that the recent AN discussion was basically a site ban, as she only edited articles related to Japanese entertainment. What are your thoughts on the matter? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi SJones. Long time since I've talked with you. Anyways, I would NOT blame you in any capacity. Lucia did this to herself over and over again. It was her long history of not getting along with others, having a battlefield mentality, and a general lack of self-awareness or willingness to change that caused this, not anything you did. Please don't feel bad, Sjones23 -- Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I know, Serge, but I have worked with her on various articles and had mostly no problems since we were here for over 7 years. I admit that I along with some other users was only trying to help her and work with her on various articles like Sailor Moon for example, but her interactions with others did not work out. I think that given her actions, she should consider taking a retirement or doing some article work in other subject areas rather than Japanese entertainment topics. I just don't want to encourage her violation of the topic ban. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

She doesn't seem interested in either one. Again, you're less at fault than, like, anyone else here. Tezero (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tezero. I consider this whole incident was a bit of a witch-hunt in the first place and given her contributions, she should retire with honor rather than leave in disgrace, or appeal her topic ban in the future. I know the full picture of what happened as I saw the events unfold. Other than that, I'll probably continue my work on Japanese entertainment related articles. Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Her talk page seems to indicate she blames me and Hastuer, (I didn't start it or participate in the last weeks worth of discussions, but I suppose I did support things) so don't lose any sleep over. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) I see, but this whole incident was actually started by ChrisGualtieri and Lucia Black on the Ghost of the Shell articles and I had nothing to do with all of these incidents, since I'm a bit opposed to the topic ban myself. Don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You're totally not the only one, but what's done is done and only she can prove herself a responsible citizen now. Tezero (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as there's a closure review going on now. I don't want to cause issues with Lucia Black and not everyone has agreed with the topic ban, that's all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Well done. I do not envy your task, sir. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)