User talk:Ferret

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. Doglicker9912

Dota 2 the continuing chronicles.

I am using the term that is the most neutral. The dota-like genre revolves around the fact that the games are similar to DotA. Because DotA is considered an ARTS by its current handler, icefrog, the whole genre is therefore an ARTS by transitivity. 'moba' is a buzzword that does not explain the dota-like genre, its origins, rather, its only use is mass-marketing and a slick off-the-tongue buzzword. It is not a game genre as every game is a multiplayer online battle in an arena if it has pvp/multiplayer. ARTS is a descriptions based on the nomenclature that a sub-genre should have its parent genre included in the name (e.g; political comedy). Please stop reverting my edits as I am using the genre which is most neutral by form of nomenclature and transitivity. Thank you. Correctingsomestuff. —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, while I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, the name of the genre on Wikipedia is MOBA. If you disagree, feel free to open a discussion at Multiplayer online battle arena about renaming the genre. Come armed with a great deal of reliable sources to back your position and make sure to quote relevant Wikipedia policy. Until the name of the genre is changed however, please cease editing the genre on these articles. I'm quite certain you read the hidden notes about this, since you edited them as well. -- ferret (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"the name of the genre on Wikipedia is MOBA." This is where you are wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information sourced from places outside of wikipedia itself. It does not claim knowledge onto any specific event or thing, it simply states and collects the knowledge we already have. You dont call Gabe Newell anything else but "Gabe Newell", because that is his given name, not the one 'wikipedia' decided he would have. So please, stop editing my changes. I am simply stating the name that the creators of DotA gave to DotA. You wouldn't vandalize someones birth name, or IP name such as "DotA," so why would you vandalize other names associated with the IP? Its non-sensible and dishonest as an editor. I have provided my relevant sources, one by third party, and one by the first party that created the IP. I have followed all guidelines as presented by wikipedia, however, I am still being vandalized because people who do not understand DotA, are editing DotA. The fact is, the genre is ARTS, the whole community of DotA2 uses ARTS, other gaming forums use ARTS (see: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/dota-2/), the owner of the IP uses ARTS, because it is not a 'moba. Other games may be, but DotA2 is an ARTS, as by nomenclature, by assignment of the IP holders, and by transivity as I have stated above. Thank you for your time, I hope I have convinced you to stop the edit war. Correctingsomestuff —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Ferret. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MWO article

If the upcoming community warfare feature belongs in the gameplay section, so does the history of how well the developer has tracked their delivery timelines.

If you insist on taking the context out of the gameplay section, I propose moving both the context and the mention of upcoming features down into the development section where they both might fit better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.42.158 (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition as well, 94. That is because you are make several conclusions that are in violation of Wikipedia's no original research and the spin is decidedly negative, which violates Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view. The most that can be set about community warfare is that it has been announced, but has yet to be implemented. By putting so much emphases on the delays, it creates a negative spin on it. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portal 2 page

I undid your reversion because, while your reversion was correct at the time, it is no longer correct as I finished posting the discussion to the talk page (I had forgotten to submit it earlier).

The section I removed is invalid because the source supplied does not support the claims attributed to the source, and it contradicts the Half-Life/Portal timeline at the Half-Life Wiki and the Combine Overwiki.

If you feel the deletion was in error, please leave a note on the comment page in the newly created section and feel free to revert. 98.127.104.89 (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]