Jump to content

User talk:ferret

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kris2311 (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 19 October 2018 (→‎Revision on JC4: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GSG

here UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check back UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check back again UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pictures

You had that part a little mixed up in the infobox. Sony Corp. can't be listed as a subsidiary as Sony Pictures when they own SP. That edit of yours didn't make sense. 2606:A000:ED84:5200:903D:4ABF:F591:52F1 (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, didn't mix anything up. The fields "owner" and "parent" are not supposed to be used together. Owner is to indicate who owns independent privately held companies, or well known majority shareholders. It isn't used for fully owned subsidiaries. You can read the documentation at {{Infobox company}} -- ferret (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're still confused. Sony Entertainment is the parent. The owner of SP and SE is Sony Corporation. As the old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".2606:A000:ED84:5200:D875:35FF:A162:605F (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still seem confused. The infobox directs us to not use both fields at the same time. They have mutually exclusive purposes. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've also been disruptively reverting bots who are doing approved cleanup of citation templates. Please stop. Templates have documentation on their use that should be followed. -- ferret (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which contained legit information on dates that have been accessed from authentic articles. How can people learn when the dates have been added when they've been removed from legit articles? Care to answer that?2606:A000:ED84:5200:EDCF:E050:BA7F:48FA (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the access-date field is only for URL based citations. These are offline journals that no one can check with a click of a URL. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch

Hi there, can you undo my changes on the CD-i page? It seems like there's some sort of glitch going on. I originally only changed a few words, but for some reason it messes with the urls in the references section as well??? Anyway, I can't seem to revert my edit in full so if you could help with that I'd appreciate it. Maniac Panic (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maniac Panic: I recommend using your sandbox until you figure out what is removing URLs from your posts. -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find a specific subject orientated page for people interested in creating specific articles?

I'm quite new here and am interested in taking your advice about concentrating discussion of a proposed page in one location. Where can I find this or any other specific topic location, how do I share my sandbox proposals with other editors/creators, and whats the best method for attracting editor/creator attention to my topic in a non disruptive way?

Thank you for your suggestions so far.

Kuyoti (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuyoti: For video game related topics, the best location to broach a subject is the Video Game Wikiproject, at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Borinquen122617

I'm a bit unclear on the disruption you cite in the block message. I see they're making things less specific, but why does that rise to disruption? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Repeated unexplained blankings and unsourced edits, despite warnings. This block was in response to an AIV report. I went with a shorter block as the disruption is not particularly heavy, but the user is also not heeding the warnings they have been left. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed the lack of discussion. It was just a bit confusing. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: Disruption might not have been the clearest notice, I can see that. As it wasn't vandalism though (I definitely don't believe he's vandalizing), but a combination of blankings and unsourced edits, it seemed closest fit. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained the issue on their talkpage. Does it fit your thinking well enough? (I have no particular connection to the editor, short of posting that initial welcome message when they made a change to a page I watchlist.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan: Looks good to me, appreciate the assist. I'll keep this in mind for other cases like this. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch Virtual Console source.

https://www.techradar.com/news/nintendo-switch-virtual-console-hinted-at-in-eshop-javascript-code https://gamerant.com/nintendo-switch-ds-n64-eshop/ Are these credible sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.252.89 (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Techradar is reliable. Gamerant is not. However, Techradar makes it clear that it is not confirmation of a VC for Switch, and shouldn't be taken as such. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

about Half-Life 2's Publisher problem

The publisher section is just so confusing. It's basically unknown if Vivendi Universal Games/Sierra were a publisher or distributor of the original physical release or not, but the source I found says that after Valve signed a distribution deal with EA, they would self-publish their games from then forward. So basically who was the original publisher for the game then, Vivendi Universal Games or Valve? (It cannot be Sierra, as they closed as a company when the game was released and were downgraded as a publishing label for VU Games.) Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LTPHarry: This entire timeframe was tied up in a lawsuit between Valve and Vivendi because of Valve's intention to self-publish. Valve ultimately won and got out of their agreements with Vivendi, who did not publish HL2 at all. EA was brought on to handle distribution only. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then, how come all original copies still have Sierra’s logo and copyright (with VU Games as well)? I thought the EA distribution deal didn’t start until Mid 2005. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LTPHarry: I was clarifying my edit but edit conflicted. Vivendi did distribution for HL2, but Valve published. After the cafe lawsuit over physical distribution versus online distribution (I.e. Steam), Vivendi lost their distribution deal, which is when EA was brought in. Either way as often brought up, covers aren't great sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for clearing up the confusion. The copyrights on other VU Games/Sierra titles tha I own tend to be vague and don’t actually list down who published the title. Still, thanks. Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bioshock Infinite Video

Hello, Ferret.

I am writing in response to your removing my link to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h56gOUZuBTg from the "Bioshock Infinite" page.

This video is relevant and appropriate for an encyclopedia, I believe, because it is simply a straightforward presentation of the game's story, which is the subject of that section of the page. The video contains no commentary or additions (though there are obviously omission). In my opinion, Bioshock Infinite is a truly great science fiction story, and I made this video with the intention of making that story accessible to non-gamers who could/would not appreciate in that medium.

If the issue is my name being at the beginning of the video, I'm quite willing to remove that, and I don't plan to put any ads on the video or otherwise monetize it. My only goal here is to make the story accessible.

Thanks for your consideration!

--Josh Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTweedy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrTweedy: It's basically self-promotion, and fails our sourcing guidelines. We do not accept user generated content for sourcing. See WP:RS for the full guidelines, and WP:USERG for user generated content in particular. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it's completely inappropriate writing for an encyclopedia to just randomly insert "Oh hey, here's a video you can watch too". That's not what we do on encyclopedias. You're on the wrong website to be sharing personal Youtube links with the world. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. About that.

The user involved (just removed off of AIV) was deleting things off of Current Events. I tell them on their talk page. They then accuse me of being a sock, which I'm not. I'm just logged out of my regular account. 108.160.125.102 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So from what I can tell, the IPv6 is claiming to be reverting sock edits related to an IP that Ponyo blocked as part of a checkuser action. I cannot really validate that, I don't know the case. Either way, it does not appear to be bad faith vandalism, so doesn't belong at AIV. IPv4/Dreigorich is simply reporting it, so consider it duly noted, and declined as not vandalism. IPv4 clearly doesn't geolocate to the IP that Ponyo blocked, but Ponyo has access to more data than I do. I asked Ponyo to take a look at the case. I see no reason to issue blocks just yet and recommend both IPs go find something else to edit for now. -- ferret (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. This appears to have been a waste of my time. I shall find something else to edit. Dreigorich (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do know I blocked someone a month or more ago who was disrupting at those recent events pages--that was their thing, that was all they did. But I can't remember if they were adders or removers. Anyway, it may well be that one of those IPs is that, but I remember only blocking an IP, not running CU or anything like that. And I don't know if there is an SPI. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Brands

That IP, those IPs--now that they're screaming at full blast, they are reminding me of someone, a screamer, who would say their name after a while (I know, sounds very sexy). Look at the IPs: after the first two they're all over the place, and I threw out a few rangeblocks; one of them is their "home range", I think, since they've been making the same trivial edits to children's TV shows and stuff for four years. But thanks for the blocks, and the semiprotection--I thought I'd let it go for another round or two and see what else they came up with, but protection is the better option, I know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Yeah he hops too easily, have to just protect. No problem. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) That shouting is familiar to me as well. It has been some time though and they tend to blend together in my memory. If Sro23 has the time he is good at tracking socks. Best regards to all. MarnetteD|Talk 02:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chell edit

Hello,

You reverted my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chell_(Portal)&oldid=prev&diff=837216031 and claimed it is unsourced, but it has a source cited. In fact it is the same source that was already there, I just brought more information from the same source to the article. It talked about the poster and I added more information written down on the exact same poster, but you deleted my edit as unsourced, even though it was from the exact same poster the rest of the section was sourced from. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nohus (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an edit from April? The first part is unsourced, as it's not clear that the parent in question was dad and only dad. The second part you added in regard to the journalist's speculation was original research and represents your own speculation. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "parent in question was dad and only dad"? It's a quote from the poster (poster for reference: https://imgur.com/a/RNq7YwR). About the second part, you are right that it is original research, but the journalist's speculation is evidently false as seen in the primary source (the poster). How can we convey that differently without it being original research? It just seems dishonest to readers to talk about the speculation and not say it's false when we know it's false. Nohus (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about "however, the same poster refers to both "dad" and "Mr. Johnson" as different people." without saying it's false? Then we are only stating facts with no opinion.Nohus (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave off "as different people" as that is interpretation. The clearest direct fact is that it refers to both. -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "dad said [..] Mr. Johnson would get mad" a clear fact that they are not the same person? If one person talks about another it should be clear that they are not the same person, no? Maybe something like "the dad refers to Mr Johnson as a separate person" is free from interpretation? It makes it clear that it's just what it says, leaving open the interpretation that he in fact has a split personality and refers to himself in third-person. Nohus (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny tidbit

I actually dug back through to see just what was on the Brian Peppers and Longcat pages. Apparently the former was two paragraphs with no references, while the latter was just "Longcat is long". I just had to laugh that those were being used as reasoning.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namcokid47

Hi! This user keeps reverting the List of Square Enix video game franchises article without proving his points that Hat Trick Hero S's a port of Hat Trick Hero '95, not a new game. I've asked him five times for a source and he's acting on bad faith, because I undid his claims, since he didn't have anything confirming what he added to the article's correct. He already broke the 3RR and is trying to engage me in an edit-war. Can you help me on this one, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.80.49 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to previous state, as this is a Featured List. Page full protected. Hash it out on the talk page. -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya

Hello, I see you have protected the article when the sock has last removed the contents of it. You might want to have a look at the changes he has made. 1.He has removed the names of the University: (State Technological University of Madhya Pradesh) you can can confirm this here: https://www.rgpv.ac.in/ which is the official website of the university. Rajiv Gandhi Technical University you can confirm this here on the About Us page of official website of the University https://www.rgpv.ac.in/AboutRGTU/AboutRGPV.aspx 2. He has removed references, affiliations, campus area, images of the university (you can see the names of university here too) which are already on wikimedia. 3. He has removed the table without any reason. I request you to restore the content. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.168.9 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added a bit of a story from inside the kitchen of Earthrise

But then you deleted my edit and caused a merge conflict, while I was still editing. In the user talk you have said that it was because it did not appear constructive. How should it be more constructive then and if I write it in a blog post, then cite it on the page, would it be any different?

Here is a part of the text:

It was later revealed by former employees that the whole development of the game was funded to be used as a front for a massive money laundering scheme by foreign investors from Russia. Near the release date several hundred thousand copies of the game were bought from Russian bank accounts. Then the team was dismissed and the fictive development was put to a hold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.131.37 (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, writing a blog won't help. It must be reported in a reliable secondary source. -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for the fast answer!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.236.131.37 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Princess Eugenie

Hi, Ferret. You said here that the IPv6 is an LTA, and has been /64 range blocked for 2 further years. But actually you have only blocked the range for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: I blocked the single IP for 31 hours, to stop immediate disruption. I then reblocked the /64 for 2 years after researching the issues deeper. The 2 year range block will show once the individual 31 hour block expires. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did? OK. The log shows 31 hours for the range. Maybe that's a bug — misleading, anyway. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: 2001:569:77E2:3900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is the range block, it's for 2 years. The log can be a bit wonky with ranges, especially if you use the full IP with /64, versus the simplied /64 with :0:0:0:0 at the end. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This one's for you, ferret. There's a few more IPs and ranges I'm looking into. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Woo that guy. Sometimes it's hard to find the right pattern when trying to shut the door for AIV. So many LTAs operating in the media spaces. -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wish they'd just live happily on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros Ultimate Release section.

I see now that you were correct about the pro controller bundle. I had not realised there was a game bundle that included the pro controller as well. I'm not sure whether another sentence for the console, game, and joy-con bundle should be included as well. As for the part where I reverted an edit made recently under the main section, the user stated that the project plan was finished, when it really was that the idea was first being conceived. The project plan was likely not finished in the same month, and even if it was, talking about the idea for the game itself sounds better and is more important than talking about the project plan. Sorry for the inconvenience. Please reply with whether you thought my ideas were a good idea, or go ahead and implement them yourself, as there's no point in me doing it if it's just going to get reverted again. Browk2512 21:23 October 16 2018.

@Browk2512: The edit that you first reverted, the editor had explicitly noted that the source said it was completed at that time. A project plan is often very high-level, but that's splitting hairs. If the Joy-Con bundle is different from the one already mentioned, feel free to add it in addition to the existing two special bundles mentioned. From my view while reviewing edits, you had removed the Pro-Controller special edition which was properly sourced, and replaced with a second mention of the Switch bundle that was already mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret: Thanks for replying. I'm only seeing one special edition mentioned in the entirety of the page, so I'm going to add a sentence about the joy-con bundle, which has not (as far as I'm aware) been mentioned yet. 01:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on JC4

The first sentence in JC4 "Synopsis" is what confused me on why it was in there unfortunately I did not read the other sentence which was my mistake...JustCauseFan..... 03:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferret&oldid=864735618"