*:Sorry, when I read this I only had a brief amount of time, and simply protected the main page. I meant to circle back. That said, it looks like they've stopped, so we're probably good until/if they start up again. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*:Sorry, when I read this I only had a brief amount of time, and simply protected the main page. I meant to circle back. That said, it looks like they've stopped, so we're probably good until/if they start up again. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*{{IPVandal|2A01:827:35D3:E701:711E:4928:AF3E:67AA}} Adding unsourced "alternate" names to articles on the Mario cartoon series. --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*{{IPVandal|2A01:827:35D3:E701:711E:4928:AF3E:67AA}} Adding unsourced "alternate" names to articles on the Mario cartoon series. --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 19:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
*{{Vandal|Lincolnscool137}} Seems to be [[WP:NOTHERE]]. --[[User:ThomasO1989|ThomasO1989]] ([[User talk:ThomasO1989|talk]]) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
== Sega development divisions ==
== Sega development divisions ==
Revision as of 02:21, 8 July 2024
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
I agree. I've blocked. Feel free to report incidents like this to me, and if I agree, I'll issue blocks or page protection as needed. Thank you! Sergecross73msg me13:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, This user keeps reverting my changes saying they are vandalism. This IP traces back to the subject of the edits who has been using wikipedia to promote his own name, articles, and videos. He doesn't cite his work, he simply pastes it into other articles.
Adding/restoring info without a source is definitely against policy. I don't know enough about these subjects to know who is correct in some of the disputes, nor am I following the accusations of self-promotion, but I'll warn them about the sourcing issues. Sergecross73msg me23:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They've only made like 1 edit in 3 weeks, and there's very little in the way of talk page discussions within the last month. And as far as I can tell, nothing really came of the AIV/ANI discussions? And it doesn't particularly look like anyone's doing very much to explain to them what they're doing wrong... Sergecross73msg me00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are obviously a lot of discussions there as I said, and on several other users' talk pages that he hounded them at, and they quit apparently because this guy's bullying obliterated the community's collective efforts so he declared his war a victory. Everybody tried to explain everything in plain sight, right there, as I said. Anyway, I engaged even harder because admins failed to do anything, and I guess it worked for now FYI. Yeah the main response at ANI was a quite typical flood from the peanut gallery, barking about how Wikipedia actually has no rules whatsoever. — Smuckola(talk)00:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you took any amount of time to address this on what basically amounts to an unpaid hobby rather than ensure you aren’t late to your paid job, you clearly have your priorities straight. Ariaslaga (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll assure you that I wasn't late, but I needed at least some time to drink coffee and watch my morning show before going to work. If I don't have that it ruins my day lol. Thanks ferret! Panini!•🥪01:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Serge, just chiming in about this since I’m the guy leaving most of the warnings on Saturnpilot (talk·contribs)’s page. Most of the warnings were for Bare URL’s, which yes isn’t a policy so it isn’t blockable. Since they do source their edits, I do believe they are editing in good faith. The main issue is the lack of communication and failure to acknowledge their warnings. They have, and still occasionally edit with unsourced content. Most recently I warned them of an unsourced edit in June: [2]. If you go through their talk page, you’ll see they have a history of editing unsourced. Several of their edits also fail to meet WP:RS, such as this one which is WP:UGC (Twitter link): [3]. After a few months, the user will usually clean up their talk page by deleting my warnings, seen here: [4], here: [5], and here, as examples: [6]. Thing is, WP:OWNTALK states that deleting a talk page usually means you’ve read the messages, but the user continues their editing patterns. They don’t use edit summaries, either, and I believe the user hasn’t used one in years (user has been on Wikipedia since 2013 and has less than 3% of their edits with summaries: [7]). With all that said, I believe the failure to communicate, failure to respond to talk page messages, and failure to use edit summaries and communicate with anyone else is a WP:CIR issue, especially for an editor that has consistently edited Wikipedia for over a decade at this point. WP:CIR states “the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus” which they repeatedly have failed to do, and “the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles” as many of their edits still don’t use reliable sources. All in all, I’m not sure if this is enough for any action to be taken, and again I do believe they are editing in good faith, but I did want to further explain about the user than what was posted above. Sorry for any inconvenience! VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when I read this I only had a brief amount of time, and simply protected the main page. I meant to circle back. That said, it looks like they've stopped, so we're probably good until/if they start up again. Sergecross73msg me20:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can we organize the pages for the Japanese Sega development divisions?: there are pages for the CS1 (RGG Studio), CS2 (Sonic Team), Fave R&D (Sega AM1, AM2) (and defunct studios like Sega Sports R&D, United Game Artists which have entangled up the former studio names, especially during the 2000s, especially with Hitmaker and Sega Rosso being under the Fave AM1/R&D1 page) However, CS1 & CS2 use their brand names on Wikipedia rather than their official division names (since those names are used whenever Sega is making a Sonic or Like a Dragon/Yakuza game). However on the games that are outside of those brand names, the Sega name is solely used instead. The Japanese Wikipedia has a lot of articles detailing Sega's development studios prior to the Sega Sammy formation (from 2000 to 2004) such as: Amusement Vision, Smilebit, the 2000 incarnation of Sega-AM2, Hitmaker, Sega Rosso and Sega WOW (including Overworks and WOW Entertainment) respectively. If there's any solutions to this, please let me know so we can figure things out. Thanks! VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend starting a discussion at Talk: Sega and then notifying WT:VG for input, if you wish to pursue this. That said...we have a pretty active group of editors working on Sega related things. I'd be a bit surprised if this was the correct path to take and no one else thought of it before. It's probably the way it is currently for a reason.
It might be a slog, but if you do get some free time, would you be able to read over this discussion? Definitely not now, but do you think the argument put up for moving the article has any significance, or is it any valid for later? Now, I do not ask you this, expecting you to be involved in the discussion itself, or that if you do speak about it, I'll go there again. No. But i only ask you this since you have experience in discussions and for a third opinion. Also, if replying or discussing with every person involved is WP:BLUDGEONING, how do we actually discuss? Do we just make our points and move on without actively replying to all the other posters? or does this only apply to the original poster? Lunar-akaunto/talk14:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, it can be hard to change a consensus when you've got 2 very viable options like this. Considering both are used, both are mentioned prominently in the intro, and either are searchable through WP:REDIRECTs existing, I wouldn't worry about it too much. There appears to be little room for confusion by the reader.
As far as bludgeoning goes, some back and forth is completely fine, encouraged even. It usually just a problem when its a lot of responses that are clearly are bogging down the discussion and getting the way of others expressing themselves. Often its an issue if its repetitive and relatively apparent that its not persuading anyone. I personally didn't think it moved into bludgeoning territory in the discussion you linked to. Sergecross73msg me13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh, I agree that there's definitely no room for confusion by the readers, but i only jumped in because i thought what the original poster said had some significance and because i did not agree with the reasons for oppose by others. But anyhow, thank you for taking the time to look at it despite it being so long. Lunar-akaunto/talk16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cancelled Master System games
I've just started a sandbox for building a Cancelled Master System games page. It's still early goings, mostly just using info from Sega Retro that will need to be fact-checked and cleaned up, but I'll be taking care of that over the next week before I move it to the mainspace. Just wanted to make sure it's on your radar so you don't start working on a similar page once you finish the Genesis games. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. That one wasn't on my radar, so you're good to go. My three next ones will probably be finishing the Genesis one, creating an Xbox One one, and rewriting the SNES one. I'm about to get a lot busier off-wiki though, so my progress could slow down for a bit too...
FYI, there may be some leads here for the Master System one. I used that article as a starting point for leads when creating and rewriting a bunch of the Sega-related ones. There were AFD discussions years back that said "List by manufacturer" weren't appropriate, so I redirected it after I had created and rewritten most of the Sega ones. I think the Master System was the only I never reworked. (Nor was I planning on it - its's also the one I have no particular interest in.) Sergecross73msg me17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I think I've now fully consolidated Sega Retro's list, the old Sega consoles list you posted, and the Cancelled Master System Games category, so that should be enough games to start with. I'll migrate over any usable sources from Retro next, then get to work writing up entries. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan. Thanks for helping. After a while, these pre-internet console ones can get a bit tedious, so I appreciate you taking some of these. Sergecross73msg me20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)