User talk:Sergecross73: Difference between revisions

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 7 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Serge’s 37th iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention.

• 2804:38A:A166:7CCA:0:0:4EA3:4A01 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hi Serge! Came across this anonymous genre warrior who performed unsourced genre edits on all the Love and Arthur Lee pages. Almost certainly the same person as User:PsychedelicRockMusic.—The Keymaster (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi again, Keymaster. Absolutely agree it’s problematic genre warring, but unless it’s a sock of someone who’s been indeffed for it, it’s generally better to try to give some guidance and/or warnings before turning to blocks/protection. Sone people don’t know it’s problematic. If they keep it up after being informed/warned some, that’s another story. Make sense? Sergecross73 msg me 02:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that makes sense. I have a feeling this person isn’t even going to bother trying again, unless it’s under yet another alias or IP. I’ll keep an eye on them. The Keymaster (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. I came across 209.93.85.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) not too long ago when I saw them disrupt the Vic Mignogna article and has been causing problems elsewhere such as Azumanga Daioh. Can you please take a look into this and see what needs to be done? Thanks, sjones23 (talk – contributions) 14:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like they’ve been warned a bunch, and next step will probably be close to blocking time. I’m not personally very familiar with the subjects they’re editing though, so it’ll either have to be blatant vandalism or I may need more context to act. Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind protecting Wii (video game series)? An IP is edit warring over whether a game is part of the series or not, but also inadvertently vandalizing it in the process. —ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Can you take a look at ~2025-31029-33 (talk · contribs)? They’ve been doing some unsourced additions to Kevin Schon within the same IP range and repeated the same warning to Waxworker (talk · contribs), but I already removed it. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 12:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Page protected, someone else blocked. Let me know if they give you further grief, you don’t deserve that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and Waxworker also didn’t deserve any grief either. I’ll surely let you know. sjones23 (talk – contributions) 14:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wonderiousmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked, but is another PawPatroller sock that tried emailing more. Could you revoke email access? —ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ~2025-42120-34 (talk · contribs) Hi. This person is on a one-track mission to de-orphan articles, all using zero sources. So very few are correct, and most are “Notable people” lists so they violate WP:RS. After two days of warnings ignored, I would hope that a short block would direct the attention to the Talk page. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 02:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone else got it. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2025-43032-01 (talk · contribs) and ~2025-43014-81 (talk · contribs), which are within the same ISP range, have been performing non-constructive edits to anime-related articles such as those on Sailor Moon and Studio Ghibli. Can you please take a look into this matter? Thanks, sjones23 (talk – contributions) 05:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like both petered out naturally. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2025-42610-54 (talk · contribs) Hi Serge. Pretty obvious trolling here, including weird comments about ethnicity and sexuality at various talk pages.—The Keymaster (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Gave a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t think it’s frequent enough for semi-protection to be needed, but this BLP feels like a decent candidate for pending changes protection to me for the obvious kinds of edits the last name attracts. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve semi-protected it for a year. Looks like there’s a long history of bad edits there. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• While we are still trying to help resolve the Britney Spears situation regarding the 2019–2021 section on the talk page, BassiStone (talk · contribs) posted comments on my talk page and on the talk page of Gnomingstuff (talk · contribs) which I find to be potentially threatening and concerning, even though I asked other uninvolved editors and relevant projects to see what can be done with the article issues and tried explaining my reasonings. I’ve already removed them, but can you please look into it when you have the chance? Thanks, sjones23 (talk – contributions) 07:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Responded on their talk page and the ANI case. No further action necessary, as it looks like they’re on their way to community ban. Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• SpongeBobMusicFan123 (talk · contribs) is demonstrably WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT WP:CIR WP:NOTHERE WP:TENDENTIOUS. He spent forever as genre warrior, including blanking several C articles and the main template for the band Chicago, and either ignoring or directly blowing off countless Talk page warnings. Then he continues identical behavior. This isn’t gonna change. Details are at Talk. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 09:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize for that SpongeBobMusicFan123 (talk) 09:32, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please follow the advice given here if you’d like to pursue this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Mind protecting List of Mario franchise characters? A block-evading IP keeps vandalizing the templates, and their other targeted articles were already protected. —ThomasO1989 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it seems like I’ve seen a different IP making similar nonsense edits to other Mario articles too. Protected. Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Northern Pirozhki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This person was recently blocked for edit warring on Papers, Please and immediately went back to re-introducing their edit, even after 4 different editors disagree. They’ve made no attempt to find consensus; could you block them from editing just this article? —ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (talk page watcher) @Sergecross73: We edit-conflicted. I was in the middle of executing a one-week page-block. No issue with your choice though, totally reasonable. Left guide (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, had no idea. Either solution would have been fine. Thanks for being a talk page watcher. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• ~2026-62268-2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Block-evading IP, with tell-tale edit summaries. —ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• ~2025-43880-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Poor edits to Super Mario Galaxy 2. —ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have missed a crucial “not” in your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard#Blocked from editing page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Edit: Ah, you spotted it yourself and fixed it while I was writing this comment! All good now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking out. Fixed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I ended up going along with just reverting Reunion to a series article redirect just as you did. Tomorrow will bring a reveal, sure, and we may well see confirmation of many things. But I’d like you to keep an eye on the page by the evening and consider if it does indeed fulfill N and whatnot. I thought about it, and I have to conclude what you and others think. How much info of substance will even be revealed there? Will it justify a separate article yet?
Always a joy seeing a familiar face around topics I enjoy editing on. Despite the peace, it gets kind of lonely when I edit super-niche topics in solace. Hope you’ve been doing well, Serge. BarntToust 02:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you’ve been well too. Thank you for understanding. My main objection is the lack of announcement/confirmation that’s causing OR issues. I’ll probably drop my objection once it’s announced. I’ll add/keep it on my watchlist. I’m aware if the series, but haven’t played any entries yet, so I probably won’t write a ton of it, but I can at least help maintain it. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. I’m looking at five sources right now that provide varying views on the leaked game being the same one that gets announced. I could definitely use the aid in maintaining it, seeing as we’ve already got an unregistered vandal in the page history, first act you thankfully reverted, and second act they self reverted?... Anywho, maybe see you tomorrow evening again or later re this article. Until next time! BarntToust 02:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note – load up the AFD discussion with SIGCOV sources that I assume exit now. That’ll likely speed it up towards a “keep” conclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thank you! BarntToust 21:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why that edit was reverted? Similar edits were kept on Nintendo Switch 2, so should that be removed too? Or is the nature of the news story the issue in the edit? Just curious. Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I should have used an edit summary. I guess I’m just confused. There’s like a million articles about the Switch out there. Why link this one? It’s not even really all that focused on the Switch itself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I only made the edit to maybe link the sister projects together regarding the topic. Similar to a link to Commons or something. Lofi Gurl (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Battle for Dream Island episodes.

Also, a while back, I’ve created a sandbox for the Emily Neves article at User:Sjones23/Emily Neves for a potential GA/FA. If you are interested in helping out, please let me know. Thanks, sjones23 (talk – contributions) 07:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]