User talk:Ferret

Would you mind

Explaining to the newbie why their edit was reverted? Re: [1]. I think I know why, but I am pretty sure that the newbie is confused. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ARTS sockpuppeting

Re your message: Sure. Same protection applied. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Trooper

Well, now we have a source... of sorts. My problem with it before was nobody was offering any kind of rationale as to why it was included, so for all I knew it was wishful thinking on behalf of the given editor. It didn't help that several anonymous IPs were responsible for adding it repeatedly after it was reverted, and that IPs usually have trouble leaving any kind of edit summary (these ones being no exception). LazyBastard Guy 00:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They hinted on Facebook, and later confirmed in this [2] post. But FB seems a shakey source to use, even if an official page. I'm not sure how well Facebook postings are received for first party sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice your second edit until long after I'd already posted here, but yes, I do agree Facebook is a bit testy as far as being a reliable source goes. My concern and the reason for my page protection request was I can easily see this becoming more and more of a problem if we don't stop it now. More and more well-meaning users will continually repost what we've taken down without realizing 1) it was taken down repeatedly before for being original research, or 2) that they weren't the first and they're only turning a dead horse into glue, so to speak. It would just give us some peace of mind to do this before it gets released this October, when all questions regarding the on-disc content will finally be put to rest. LazyBastard Guy 01:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I know you know how this works, but keep in mind it takes two to war. I understand you sought assistance and I commend you for it, but as the contested edits aren't unarguably vandalism, I would've expected you to have started a talk page discussion about the dispute already. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dota2

Please stop incorrectly labeling DotA2 as a 'moba' game. Valve Cooperation has stated officialy what the genre of their game is. And by extension, the creater and handler of the game Icefrog, who is currently working with Valve, has also stated his game is an ARTS game.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doglicker9912 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but on Wikipedia, the genre is known as moba. See the talk pages of the various articles to see this has been discussed many times. -- ferret (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson has a say in his religious views as displayed on wikipedia, Valve has a say in the genre name of their ARTS game, which not only pioneered the genre, but is still the bases of many games within the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doglicker9912 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else calls it a MOBA so we go with that. And no, comparing it to a religious view is wrong. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I am not comparing it with religion, I am comparing it with the way someone VIEWS their own property. NDT has a right to have his property labeled accordingly, in the same way that Valve has the right to label their property accordingly. It does not matter what other people use, DotA is the original and it is in the hands by Valve. They have every right to call it what they wish, because it is their own. ferret