Jump to content

User talk:Ferret/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Your revert on Call of Duty: Black Ops 4

Regarding your revert on Call of Duty: Black Ops 4, I have stopped making the superfluous edits of adding spaces to every heading, like I told you earlier—except when the article uses multiple different styles of headings. Some articles use multiple different styles at once, such as having spaces in some headings and no spaces in other headings, like the Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 article did. (Also, sometimes, some of the headings have one space on one side with no space on the other.) I added spaces to the rest of the headings to make the article’s heading style consistent because, as far as I’m aware, the stylization choice of an individual article should be consistent within it and not use multiple different styles simultaneously (such as both British and American English or both serial commas and no serial commas), and another editor once told me that this also concerns the use of spaces in articles.

I do not make the superfluous revisions of adding spaces to every heading anymore, but I’ve been adding or removing spaces from some headings to make articles consistent with their styles.

Regarding the Official website template, I forgot to check if Wikidata had the link to the website. I apologize for that; it won’t happen again. I usually check, but I forgot it this time. I have now added the website URL to the Wikidata page for Call of Duty: Black Ops 4.

I think that in the future, you should just revert the changes that were incorrectly made rather than the entire revision, but I understand that that takes more time. Interqwark talk contribs 17:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: The gameplay section is the newest section added to the article. The older sections were unspaced, so that is the style that should be retained. I did keep a part of your edit, but I undid what was causing a red error message and the style change. -- ferret (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
So, inconsistencies is fine if it’s a new section or paragraph rather than a change to an existing one? Is there a Manual of Style page or section about this?
Also, you did undo changes I made to the |developer= parameter of the infobox without explaining it. Interqwark talk contribs 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Interqwark: I did not undo your change to developer. I actually changed it to something else entirely, removing mention of "Battle royale" entirely. If you look at my diff, you will also notice I updated the new sections to match the old section. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you’re right! Sorry again. I just looked at the blue and yellow colours instead of reading it. My bad!
Anyway, I see that you did remove all the spaces for consistency anyway. I thought you said that inconsistencies were fine in this case since the sections with spaces were newer ones? Interqwark talk contribs 17:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Interqwark: I was not saying inconsistencies were fine, but that the oldest style used in the article should be the one used.. I also want to warn you about this "point out exactly where the MOS says that" type responses each time an experienced editor reverts you. I've suspected for a while now that you're a clean start account, and I know exactly who. These constant non-impactful style edits and MOS questioning, followed by edit warring over them, is obvious. If you don't slow down and address these behaviors, it's going to result in some more serious warnings and eventually lead to a block, especially the edit warring. Even if I'm wrong about the clean start, the edit warring is going to eventually get you. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve stopped reverting while discussing the changes in the edit summaries as I said on my talk page earlier. I didn’t know that the oldest style should be retained. Another editor once told me on a talk page that articles should use one style and be consistent with it, including the spaces or lack of spaces in headings, which is what I have thought up until now. I didn’t know that the oldest style should be retained, which is why I asked for a Manual of Style page or section detailing it. I wanted to know more about the topic. I wasn’t trying to be rude or malicious, if that’s what you were thinking. I haven’t read through the entire Manual of Style and all its subpages, so, I don’t know all the guidelines. Even if there is no MoS section or page about the topic, I will definitely keep everything that you and other editors tell me in mind, as I don’t want to be making ssuperfluous edits.

Again, I have kept everything you told me in mind and have stopped with the back-and-forth reverting and the discussing of edits in the edit summaries themselves. I also stopped adding spaces to every heading after you told me to, as I realize that it’s not necessary and violates MOS:STYLERETAIN.

If articles do go by the the-oldest-style-is-retained rule, I will certainly keep that in mind. I apologize for my disruptive edits. I only ever meant to contribute to Wikipedia, not be disruptive. I will be cautious with conflicts in the future and will always take to the talk pages before reverting. Again, my apologies for not keeping the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle in mind. The article does state that reverting is fine in some cases and that one should thoroughly explain one’s revision in the edit summary, and that’s what I’ve been trying to do, but I wholly understand that it is much better to discuss edits on talk pages rather than constantly reverting and using long edit summaries upon conflicts between editors, so I will always take to the talk pages in the future for discussions whenever I have a conflict with another editor. Interqwark talk contribs 17:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC) (Edited 12:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC).)

@Interqwark: MOS:STYLERET essentially covers style retention. Styles should be retained unless there is a valid reason to change them. If you come across inconsistency, try to review the article history and determine the original style. This also applies to things like English spelling variants and date formatting. For example, if an article is using MDY dates from the start, it should not be changed to DMY without a valid reason such as an obvious strong national tie (I.e. "London" is DMY because the UK uses DMY). Since you edit in the video game area, I'd like to note that a developer's nationality is not considered a strong national tie for a video game. So a video game article using MDY should not be changed to DMY because the developer is British, etc. However, articles for a series like Tomb Raider/Lara Croft use British spellings and DMY even when the developer is American, because the subject itself, Lara Croft, is very tied to a British context. -- ferret (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought that you meant that the article could use spaces in some headings and no spaces in others and that that shouldn’t be changed. I did come across MOS:STYLERET.
Is it fine to add spaces to or remove spaces from headings, among other stylization changes, if the article is inconsistent? If so, I will be certain to go through the history and check what the oldest one used was and then edit the article to use that style.
Again, I haven’t been adding spaces to every heading since you told me not to. I realize that that’s unnecessary. However, I added spaces to the headings of the Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 article since some of the headings had spaces while others didn't. Interqwark talk contribs 18:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Interqwark: Understood, and I have noted you stopped changing it in most articles. Inconsistency should be fixed. Just try to determine the original style first. -- ferret (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I will keep that in mind. I apologize for not being very knowledgeable about the policies. I will read up on the necessary policies and guidelines and not make superfluous edits. I’ll stick to the talk pages for discussion about conflicts between me and others, and I will look through the history to determine the original style of any article whose style I want to change for consistency. Interqwark talk contribs 18:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC) (Edited 12:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC).)

@ferret: By the way, is there anything wrong with asking about a MoS section or subpage? I wanted to learn more about whatever the topic was, not to ask for proof of its existence.

I’ve not been trying to be disruptive. I’ve listened to all the criticism I’ve gotten and haven’t repeated any mistakes that I’ve done. I will always look through the history when I want to change stylization choices for consistency, and I will always take to the talk pages when discussing conflicts between myself and others. I won’t keep up any misguided behaviour and will try to read up on the Manual of Style pages that I haven’t yet fully read. I want to be a relatively valuable contributor to Wikipedia and not a pest. I apologize for back-and-forth reverting and discussing in the edit sumaries; and the non-impactful stylization changes, but that will and has changed. I’ve read the Manual of Style sections you have given me the links to, and I won’t impose any of my superfluous, artifial rules if others disagree. Interqwark talk contribs 20:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll gladly answer any MOS questions you have, if I can. There are a maze of them. -- ferret (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks! Interqwark talk contribs 20:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, ferret. I just wanted to say that I take everything that I keep everything that you told me in mind whenever I edit a page, and I apologize for previously making superfluous edits to various articles. I no longer change the style of an article unless it doesn’t have a fixed style, using multiple styles at once. When editing, I’ve gone back and looked at the earliest revisions for numerous articles to determine what styles, date formats, and dialects that they used to determine which style to be consistent with as well. Thanks for helping me understand this, and I hope that my current edits are less inconsequential. I recently made a rather major revision to the Mario Party article rather than make minor style changes to various articles as I have previously done. I’ll always keep MOS:STYLERETAIN in mind whenever I’m editing.

I also apologize for previously using edit summaries for discussion. I’ve kept all discussions to talk pages rather than back-and-forth edit summaries, as there is no good way to reply in an edit summary, and talk pages are always superior for discussions and resolving conflicts. I also learnt of the existence of Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is also useful for getting another opinion in a dispute.
Cheers! Interqwark talk contribs 02:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Destructoid citation

Regarding this revision, how does one verify if an author is reliable on a blog site? Tantamounts talk contribs 02:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: In this case the author is the long time managing editor (I.e. editor in chief). It's not a community/user post, and the information is also pretty uncontroversial and no reason to suspect it. -- ferret (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Sorry for wrongly removing the citation. Tantamounts talk contribs 03:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Fallout 76 circular redirect

I changed the Fallout 76 link on Fallout (series) to a section link again. I think that this is better since it loads more quickly due to not reloading the page. We could just revert the change once the Fallout 76 article is created (presumably after E3 2018).

Is that fine? I thought to do this after JJMC89 circular redirects to section links on George Miller (entertainer).

If the links are better to use, we might as well use them up until the article in question is created, right? Tantamounts talk contribs 22:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: There was zero doubt this would have an article and the very next day it was created again and expanded. I've restored the link. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought we would have to wait for E3 for more information, but you’re right; the article exists now, so there’s no need for the section link. Tantamounts talk contribs 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about your revision on Super Smash Bros.

Regarding your revision on Super Smash Bros., if Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U is considered one instalment, shouldn’t the rest of the article, the Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U article itself, and other articles that refer to these games be changed as well?

The article about the 3DS and Wii U game(s) refer to it/them as both a “game” and “games.”
Personally, I think that it should be considered just one instalment. The game was likely made for the Wii U and then ported to the Nintendo 3DS. Tantamounts talk contribs 00:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: It's really one game but released with separate titles on the two platforms. It's one instalment of the series. That's why they are a single article to begin with. -- ferret (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
All right. I’ve changed the wording of the article in accordance with your revision. Tantamounts talk contribs 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A nice goat just for you

I would give you a ferret, but it didn’t give me the option. Tantamounts talk contribs 04:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that you linked to Battlefield (series) on your profile, but the page was moved last year, and its redirect target was changed earlier this year. Did you mean to link to Battlefield (video game series)? Tantamounts talk contribs 22:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Tantamounts talk contribs 23:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Anchor

Hi. Regarding this revert, I used the anchor in this edit summary. The page has other anchors for individual list entries as well (PCGamesN and Nintendojo). Tantamounts talk contribs 23:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: We definitely shouldn't begin anchoring every entry there. Just link to the appropriate table section. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You’re right. I will. Tantamounts talk contribs 23:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Protect

Hi. If I request a block, can my talk page and user page then be protected, or at least my user page? WP:UPPROT says that user pages may be protected by request (but not user talk pages). Tantamounts talk contribs 04:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: If you want a block for an enforced break, I will provide one. There is no reason to protect your user page (There's no disruption or vandalism). If during your block you for some reason keep using your talk page, I will consider protecting it, as I did your older account. However, I really suggest that a block alone is sufficient to enforce a break if you cannot stop yourself from editing while recognizing the need to step back. Protecting the talk page prevents you from making a normal unblock request later. -- ferret (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I don’t want the ability to simply request an unblock on my talk page. I would rather just contact an admin via e-mail should I choose to return. I would really appreciate if you could protect my talk page. Tantamounts talk contribs 11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Could you reply? Thank you. Tantamounts talk contribs 14:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
To quote from your talk page: "This is separate from the self-block you've asked for, which I currently am waiting to see how BDD replies." -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not going to continue editing policy or guideline pages (or any pages at all), so you don’t have to block me for disruption.
Anyway, can we please discuss my self-requested block? I would appreciate if you could protect my talk page like you did on my first account. Tantamounts talk contribs 14:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
To quote even more specifically: "I currently am waiting to see how BDD replies." -- ferret (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Why? You’re also an admin. Tantamounts talk contribs 14:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Because I choose to? Because you asked multiple admins? Because admins often confer with each other? Because BDD applied the self-block to your last account and might have an opinion on the subject? -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright. Tantamounts talk contribs 15:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing posts

Hi. WP:REDACT says that you can remove posts if no one has responded. Tantamounts talk contribs 13:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't care. It also says "only a short while", not "days later". I've ignored the multiple times you've made large edits to comments I've already replied to in the past. So I'll just make it clear here: Do not remove or edit comments on my talk page, period. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, that’s fine. But can I ask you to please remove it for me? Tantamounts talk contribs 13:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Project New California

Here are some more citations Comicbooks.com Teams facebook page Confirmed by moddb page dosgaming posted the official trailer in the article as well.. Can I revert your edit and just add the citations in order to not rewrite it all? ShimonChai (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@ShimonChai: Comicbook.com is the best of those. The others are primary sources. It should be fine to include in prose. Please do not include in the infobox per template documentation. We only list official releases, not betas. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: I edited it back in without the infobox edit and only with the comicbook.com citation. Out of curiosity, when the beta is released does the TBA just get removed? ShimonChai (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Until an official non-beta is announced or released. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatorama

I think he attempted to appeal his block, claiming his son was using the account. I haven't studied his history, so he might still deserve an indefinite block, but perhaps you might reconsider. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: I don't really buy it. The account's only purpose appears to have been to insert various homophobic remarks in a couple of articles. No good contributions at all that I can really tell. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't check his edits. I just wasn't sure you would see his misplaced appeal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Leaving messages for blocked users w/o talkpage access

Hey, just a heads up - Alex can't respond on his talkpage as TPA is revoked, and I protected the page. Continuing to leave messages there might actually encourage his behavior. Just something to think about. SQLQuery me! 21:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough on that point. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) It's more for unblocking admin than Alex himself. And no response is requested. Makes sense to me, as a quick reference for admin, considering the pure volume of unblock requests made related to Alex. Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

108.180.194.7 / 154.5.169.5

108.180.194.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

154.5.169.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Interesting edits from 154.5.169.5:[1][2] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @Oshwah already blocked. -- ferret (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Phil Murphy

Now that the election's over and Phil Murphy's been in office for awhile, can you drop the protection? 174.198.10.170 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Declined. July 2 will be here soon enough. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

EepOppOrp

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJCola. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Socking

Think a CU would be warranted on User:Jacksparrowff? I've already blocked per WP:DUCK. Might be able to turn up some sleepers. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Duck is probably sound, but in case @NinjaRobotPirate and Ajraddatz want to take a look.... -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Something like  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). Same device and geolocation as AlexanderHovanec, but he's on an ISP I don't recognize. Could be using public wifi or something like that, I guess. I don't see any sleepers, just some vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: He's been bragging about how he knows how to use VPNs, as info. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems more likely to me that he's using public infrastructure, but I'll keep that in mind. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate and Ohnoitsjamie: 108.39.216.22 might be worth hard blocking, thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
No objections from me. That would at least make further socking much less convenient, since that's likely one of his primary IPs. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
It's probably best to avoid doing blind hard blocks – they can cause a lot of trouble on some ISPs, and you never really know if the situation may have changed from the last checkuser block. There isn't any collateral damage on that IP address, but I'm pretty cautious of year-long hard blocks. Most IP addresses allocated to residential customers don't stick around that long. I guess it can be lifted if there are problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I think its worth doing too. You could always try doing it for a shorter amount of time as well, as a trial. I support whatever time-frame. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Shadowthemonkey and Shadowtherhino look like obvious ducks, at least with each other, and edit common Alex targets. Could you check? -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Shadowtherhino is almost certainly him. I'll block that account. Shadowthemonkey comes back technically Red X Unrelated; it's the wrong continent, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence it's anything but a residential customer on a major ISP. That still leaves meat puppetry as a possibility, of course. If it weren't for the similar usernames, I'd say it's nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thanks. I will lean on the side of caution. He may have seen Shadowthemonkey and used it as a mimick for his account. Not the first time he has copied other user names in his socking. -- ferret (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Check on Blockhead Man please? Behavioral evidence is pretty ducky. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 Confirmed to Botany and Art and Ramello jay. I don't see anything else. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Two new weak ducks, Sedeqtelebab and Detriek. I know you can't comment but behaviorially, 107.242.117.7 looks connected. All 3 active on AH topics around the same time period. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
They two named accounts are  Confirmed to each other, and they seem  Likely to Hovanec. They look to be the only socks active, but I'm not sure if I can find all the potential sleepers with this data. If you let them roam free for a week, I'd probably have a lot more data to analyze. Just saying. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I've found several others and blocked a range. Most are just being thrown away after a edit or three. Going to start protecting the frequent targets, certainly well past the mark of "persistent sockpuppetry". -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Warring

Trust me, I try not too, but it’s kind of difficult, I mean what happend to Rush was just to prevent JackOffDiamonds from reverting light metal and heavy metal from the genre list, I don’t know what article your referring about, but pardon me for any disruption I might've caused. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NGR/700 Page

Hi Ferret, how do we stop Joshua Wynne (4TheWynne) from constantly revering our valid edits on this page. I thought having it semi-protected stopped this type of vandalism. TIA, Michael (jamesmp1184). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmp1184 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The page was protected to stop a sock/meat farm that was harassing 4TheWynne. It was not protected to stop him from editing the article, nor would the current protection level preventing it. "Our?" "We?" You seem to use a lot of plurals to describe your edits... @Oshwah and NinjaRobotPirate: Thoughts? Minor flare up at New Generation Rollingstock, related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Jamesmp1184 is related to LukaRuckels. LukaRuckels is usually pretty easy to confirm with checkuser. I think this is more likely to be a content dispute unrelated to the socks. I don't know what the "we" and "our" refers to, but I'd assume it has something to do with a rail fan club or something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Wasteland (Series)

Hello, I made a new page Wasteland (series). I know that you are active a lot in articles relating to video games and was wondering if you could help with it. ShimonChai (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Warning threat?

Spare your kindness. Reverting sourced content without properly mentioning a reason backed by sources IS edit warring. Adding sourced content backed by several reliable sources including IGN and PC gamer, is good faith edit. Refere to WP:RS and WP:SC . You well know that any user who disagrees woth a sourced content can simply use a wanring template on talk page. So spare your kindness and avoid bullying. Solinothe Wolf 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Solinothe Wolf 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you're referring to Ferret's comment on your talk page, then you are mistaken, it wasn't even remotely bullying. He's rightfully telling you to stop reverting continuously. Yes, sourcing is necessary to add content, but just because you have a source does not automatically warrant inclusion either. There are plenty of things that you can source that still aren't appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Discuss and come to a conclusion first, then make your additions if they are supported by consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:EW. "But I have a source", "I am right", are not excuses to edit war. Good faith edits can still be edit warring. -- ferret (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. As I mentioned before, if there are reliable sources for a fact, it can only be reverted because of (1) Sources disputing that fact OR (2) concerning WP:NOT or maybe WP:NN. So when several reliable and prominent mainstream sources use a term for a certain video game, deleting that information from the page needs proper reasoning. Was the use of this term disputed by other reliable sources? At list I have never seen a WP guideline allowing the Deleting of a sourced information by just saying "Consensus". Btw, I do consider the language Ferret used on my talk page bullying. There were two sides to the reverting issue. If Ferret is concerned with edit war, I would see a similar 'warning threat' on other users talk page (WP:NOEDIT). If it was a policy issue, he could join the discussion Lordtobi and I were having on my talk page over WP:BRD and weigh in on why they think adding a term used by several prominent gaming sources is a Bold edit. But the way Ferret decidedly picked sides, and the tone of his message, makes it clear he's attempting bullying (See: WP:POV RAILROAD). Solinothe Wolf 05:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to your opinion. The meaning behind my message was simple. Some people don't appreciate being templated repeatedly. You had already received template, so I spared giving you another. I wrote message instead and pointed you to where a discussion had begun on the project talk page, as you had been warring with several editors across several articles. It's difficult to see how I'm bullying you out of the discussion when I deliberately invited you to it. -- ferret (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked editor

I see that you blocked Flockofpigeons' account on 25th April. It seems that the editor made only a single edit (which was indeed vandalism). I am surprised that you indefinitely blocked the account on the basis of a single edit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Axl: This was part of a Tumblr vandalism raid that resulted in over 50 protections and at least 100 blocks. -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

moe. (band) page move

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that, per Wikipedia's rules (here), this page be moved. The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd , and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I see you've withdrawn this. I recommend following proper move requests and not spam messaging a dozen admins. -- ferret (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you close an AfD that's been a week please?

Hello.

It's been a long time. Could you close an AfD discussion that's been over 1 week (7 days) now please?

Thank you. 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC) 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's from Portrait of Lotte. 🖍S (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's been relisted. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for staying with me and assistive when I struggled during my brief time of activity under this account. I am currently planning a clean start in a few months, and hope that not only you continue to maintain to the best of your ability articles I've improved, but also that we cross paths again soon. This one's on me. :) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Henan-based IP socking by Whaterss

Hello, you had delivered the last sanction on an IP sock of Whaterss for harassment and edit warring with other IPs. The harassment is to follow my contribution history and follow up within 12–24 hours. Same pattern earlier this week: (I edit a town in Guangzhou, he follows up within 12 hours; same with a larger district of that city (follow-up).

As to the edit warring with IPs, it has often been the case in the past 2 months that Whaterss will make a WP:POINTy edit and then induce a different IP user (and person) to revert, often multiple times in a several-hour window.

The IPs have been noted by EdJohnston, in response to a WP:AN3 complaint I made, to be Whaterss socks; he was understandably too busy to follow through with a lengthy rangeblock. Also, note the (acted-upon) explicit threats to continue the socking.CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I'm not entirely sure what, if anything, you are asking me to do. Is there an active IP that needs blocked? You may need to seek assistance from ANI. -- ferret (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not being explicit; I was asking for a rangeblock as the next sock IP in a couple of hours from now will likely be a rotation. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Protection for Alex Hunter

Hi am requesting that the article Alex Hunter due to persistent vandalism from an ip user. Thank you. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Same IP ranges as the last time. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Interested in helping out at Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos?

Hi there. I noted you are active in RTS and Warcraft in particular, so I wondered if you could help me with Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos. The article is currently rated as B-class (probably by 2008 standards since it contained few secondary sources) but maybe together we can GA it? I already made "some" changes but especially the development history eludes me since I cannot find much online. I can remember seeing drastically different screenshots of the game in old gaming magazines I have long thrown away but maybe you have some access. Regards SoWhy 17:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I'll try to give it a glance but no promises. I'm on a bit of a low activity period and I've always been more on the patrolling/gnoming side besides. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I just thought of you since it's an area you expressed interest in. I'll ask at WT:VG but feel free to give it a glance or two anyway. Regards SoWhy 08:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Arena of Fate will never be officially cancelled

Hi, Arena of Fate will never be officially cancelled. The head designer of Arena of Fate left the studio and Crytek Black Sea was sold to Sega. There is no one who can officially cancel this game. There is no source because no one will ever talk about this game again. It is forgotten. I think it is completely wrong to stay "Arena of Fate is an upcoming video game", it's misinformation. 178.220.226.245 (talk) 01:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Without a source that it is cancelled, or that Crytek Black Sea is completely defunct, we cannot really make that statement. It hasn't been THAT long since the studio was bought by Sega and we don't know their plans. It can be revisited at anytime but a consensus would need to be reached to change it. -- ferret (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Viktoria

Let me create it. I found Sputnikmusic as a fourth source. ~SML TP 12:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sixty Minute Limit: You should create a draft first, since the notability is highly questionable and "I found a second source" isn't really enough. -- ferret (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
It was already created as a redirect, so how can I create one out of the existing page? And is a fourth source, but really the album has been reviewed a lot. And also, Marduk’s full discography is already their, so why can’t I add their most recent album? ~SML TP 12:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Sixty Minute Limit: Nuclear Blast and All Music do not help notability. Nuclear Blast is a primary source, and All Music is just a directory. Drafts can be merged into existing redirects. Did you even read WP:NALBUM? "The other albums are already there" isn't a validate rationale. -- ferret (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I’ll just put in my sandbox for a while, until more sources back it up. ~SML TP 12:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

About the Wii Mini

You said that the Wii Mini not appearing in sales reports starting in 2017 is evidence that the Wii Mini has been discontinued. Can you send me a link or two that proves this to be the case? 344917661X (TALK) 01:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@344917661X: It's very indicative. Look at any of Nintendo's sales reports. They're linked in almost all of the console articles. Wii, Wii U, Switch, 3DS, 2DS, etc. 02:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right, sales for the Wii suddenly go down to zero in 2017. 344917661X (TALK) 15:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
But should we add this information under the Wii Mini section of the article on the Wii? 344917661X (TALK) 15:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

X-Wing Series

Hello, I am David Wessman and I worked on the entire X-Wing series. I would like to improve the articles about those games with my direct knowledge. Some of the information I wish to add may only be verified by those who worked on the games, or may exist in a form where it cannot be easily verified (out of print magazine or website interviews, for example). What do you recommend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessmaniac (talk • contribs) 17:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wessmaniac: Without a reliable source, it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Offline sources like magazines are fine though, as like as you can accurately cite them (I.e. what magazine, what issue, date, author of article, etc). If it is not in a source, it unfortunately cannot be simply added by people who worked on it. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Ferret, You Are Good at what you do. Zencord (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement

.*Eye roll* -- No, I will not sign my post(and don't you dare sign it for me!) U.T.C.: 2018-09-04, 00:45.

It's ok, the bot did it for you. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is it on a delay?!--No, I will not sign my posts.
Why in the world would you not want to sign your posts? You don’t want to show ownership over the things you say? Sergecross73 msg me 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
My post is distinguished from the rest by a mere statement (--no, I will not sign my posts). Ownership is claimed, you if doubt that I made a comment; there's no reason to assume that a proper signature is any more valid. The only solution to see who truly added a comment is to check the history page. So, it really doesn't matter, does it. I make a comment that identifies me; you make a signature, botch can be edited by others, only the page history shows valid info'. So, given that, I will not sign my posts and prefer to invoke the right to be forgotten than have them be signed for me.--No, I will not sign my posts.
Wikipedia:Signatures requires signing posts on talk page, and also requires that the signature link to your userpage or talkpage, or contributions (for IPs). Leaving out a talk page link, or leaving out timestamps that impact archiving bots and user's own clarify of when replies were made, is disruptive. You don't have a "right" to be forgotten, posts need attributed. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten ---no, I will not sign my posts.
An indef is warranted per WP:NOTHERE and WP:TROLL (in my opinion) - FlightTime (open channel) 15:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Your opinion is incorrect. As you can see per my contributions, all my edits have been valid except for one. But if it makes you feel better? Sure, I'll just come back and continue editing. I mean, I once donated money to Wikipedia even, not to suggest that that will give me any special leeway but it does show my intent to be more than negative. --No, I will not sign my posts.

Sigh. You're just being disruptive at this point. WP:SIGNHERE applies to everyone. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

.*Mornful prrrft from my mouth in face of your astounding sigh.* As long as I'm being disruptive on the account of undoing my bot-added signature, not for discussing this here, as then you're all disruptive too for conversing with me. Making that clear. And since it, for that reason, can't be for discussing: Can this wiki' allow for the right to be forgotten, which I do I have, contrary to Ferret's statement, be used in such a manner to have my mentions be removed to avoid a signature. Yes, I prefer history to forget me than to remember me poorly. I will fight my forced signature, a consideration so far is to make a crap account with a signature I deem acceptable and sign all my posts. Proving the connection of the two shouldn't be difficult. Any other suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.12.145 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

PS3 sales data at 85 million, claimed by several pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello.

The following articles are stating, that the PS3 has sold 85 million units:

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a829538/playstation-3-production-stops/

"More than 85 million PlayStation 3 consoles have been sold since launch, and in spite of stiff competition from the Xbox 360, the console eventually overtook its Microsoft rival in terms of global sales."

http://www.bgr.in/news/sony-reportedly-stops-production-of-playstation-3-in-japan/

According to the company’s product page, the shipment is marked as complete, suggesting end of production of the gaming console which was first released in 2006 and sold over 85 million units since its launch.

https://www.estarland.com/platforms/Playstation3/108

As of March 2016, PlayStation 3 has sold 85 million units worldwide, putting it about on par with Xbox 360, but behind the Wii. Its successor, the PlayStation 4, was released later in November 2013.

I would like to update the article List_of_best-selling_game_consoles to include these figures at the PS3 part, but the article is locked. I know that these are not official reports, but estimates, but Xbox 1 has also unsourced estimates (the linked article never disclose the source, just refers to "third party estimate") instead of official figures, because the official figures are 4 year old. Since the last official figures for both console are from 2014, these estimates could also be included in the list.

Could you please update the list?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.222.187 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2018‎ (UTC)

No.. Unlike Xbox One, Sony released all their sales data for PS3, and we know how many units they officially say they sold. Estimates that claim more and contradict that cannot be used. It'd be different if there were some evidence that Sony did not divulge final numbers. Xbox One is an unfortunate case where Microsoft decided to stop releasing any official figures. Our only choice in that case is to mention estimates. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Then the correct thing would be to remove the estimate of Xbox 1 sales too. The cited article never mentions any source, just says "third party estimate". That is anything but valid.


I guess your silence means no. Well, it is interesting, that if one website by referring to an unnamed source claims that Xbox sales are actually 300% bigger than what the official figures shows, you accept that without question, but when three different websites claims that PS3 sales are 1.5% higher than the official figures tells, you'll refuse that without a thought. Yes, it's quite interesting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.36 (talk • contribs)
(talk page watcher) Please stop with the drama. His silence likely means that he's tired of arguing with people when this has been discussed to death elsewhere. There was a consensus to go with an estimate for Xbox One estimates because their sales figures were extremely out of date, and it doesn't service the reader to give them a figure like "10 million" when the reliable source estimates are like between 30 and 40 now. We don't use the PS3 estimates because we've got much more up to date sales figures for PS3, and the PS3 estimates don't come from very reliable sources. While the Xbox estimates come from professionals in the industry, the sources you gave above are just random estimates thrown out by low level gaming blogs. (and apparently an online retails games website, which also wouldn't be an authority on game console estimates.) It's not the same at all, so stop trying to suggest there's some sort of double standard here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You keep repeating that the PS3 figures are much more up to date, but in reality there is only a half year between the two dates (2014 June vs. 2015 Q1). Also, i would not label uncredited "third party estimates" as a reliable source or professionals from the industry. And the best part, you chastising me for using low level gaming blogs as references, which is, first, untrue, since digitalspy.com and bgr.in are generic online newspapers and estarland.com is a webshop, and second, unfair, since your Xbox 1 estimate really came from a gaming blog: engadget.com. And actually two of the three sites are way older than engadget.com, so why do you calling them low level? What counts low level in your terminology? The estimates between 30 and 40 million is also funny; microsoft stopped to deliver the official figures with a reason: nobody aside the diehard microsoft fans wanted to buy that orwellian nightmare what they dared to call a console. So, i have only one question left: among whom there was a consensus? The microsoft fans, who took over most of the technical articles on Wikipedia years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.31.137 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2018‎ (UTC)
And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. The accusation that this is some sort of conspiracy by Microsoft fans to drown out the PlayStation faith and it's holy truth. Xbox One estimates are widely published by many reliable secondary sources, and we use them because Microsoft does not release figures, and with disclaimers that they ARE estimates. Sony publishes their sales figures, so we use them directly, and there's simply no need to rely on any estimates. -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, i don't even have a PlayStation of any generation. And not to "drown out the PlayStation faith" (who cares about Sony?), just to do some cosmetics on the Xbox stats and to make people believe that microsoft did not failed on the console market too, after the smartphone and browser market. And yet again, you avoided to answer the core point: Last Xbox 1 figures: 2014 June, Last PS3 figures: 2015 Q1. New Xbox 1 estimate: 300% bigger and accepted, New PS3 estimate: 1.5% bigger and refused. Just answer this one please: both figure stats are four year old, why do you keep saying that the Xbox ones are outdated while the PS3 ones are fresh, when they are almost the same age? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.124 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
You approached me directly on this topic, and I've explained why its the way it is. I'm not going to change my position. You have three options now: 1) Drop it. 2) Take it to the list's talk page, rather than my personal talk page. 3) Take it to WT:VG for a wider project audience. However, I do not think you'll get traction with the latter two, as those are the places that decided the current consensus. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, you have failed to give any answer about my question: the last figures are roughly came from the same time for both console and yet, you accepted an estimate of a gaming blog for one and refused it for the other, and explained with "PS3 figures are more updated" which is false. So?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.161.124 (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2018‎ (UTC)
I've given all the answers I intend to on this line of questioning. We're done here. You can try other avenues as suggested or simply drop it. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collaborating on Suikoden II

Hello, I'm reaching out to see if you would be be willing to collaborate with me on improving the article for Suikoden II. I've got a handful of proposed edits and citations drafted on the game's talk page.[3] Would you be able to help me with these edits? TrueNeutral14 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi TrueNeutral14. Please see my response to SoWhy above. Unfortunately I'm simply not heavy on content work at this time. Be Bold and go for it. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) - I've left a bit of a comment, at least. But yes, otherwise, the page is in rather rough shape, and doesn't appear to be maintained very actively by anyone, so while it's good to ask questions and ask for help, but feel free to be bold and just go for it too, you're free do so up until the point where there are people actively against what you're doing, basically. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

A user is edit-warring on the Roblox page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Bonadea is edit-warring on the Roblox page. Please could you do something about this?

UltraChas (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted your poorly sourced additions and original research twice. I was in the process of writing an explanation of exactly why your edit (including the latest one which I have not reverted) is inappropriate, when I saw your ping here. Thank you for saving me the time and effort. --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bonadea: My additions are not "poorly sourced" and I spent some time trying to get citations. I was going to add a Daily Mail article about Roblox and children, but the filter prevented me from doing it, so I spent some time trying to find another news site with a similar article. UltraChas (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Left a final warning on UltraChas's talk page. Further interaction on this topic should occur on their talk page. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Minecraft page should be unprotected

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You claim that it was protected to prevent vandalism, however you should lower the protection level to semi-protected so that auto confirmed Wikipedia users can edit it. If any vandals attack the page, users can just revert the vandalism and report it to an admin.

UltraChas (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@UltraChas: I am the admin who protected both Minecraft and Roblox. No, the protection should not be removed and it is already set to semi-protected. You simply aren't auto-confirmed yet. Both pages face constant vandalism and it's a waste of volunteer time to constantly have to check and revert high levels of vandalism. When no one happens to look, vandalism can sneak by for hours or days, especially if volume is high and a revert is missed. We use protection to limit this type of issue. Essentially, when users report high levels of vandalism to an admin as you suggest, protection is often the action we take in response. -- ferret (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: I am autoconfirmed already, I have been on Wikipedia for several days now. Protecting pages that are frequently vandalised is fine, but protecting them from non-admin users permanently or for a long time is not the way to go. If a page is frequently vandalised, then just temporarily protect it or restrict it to autoconfirmed editors. UltraChas (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@UltraChas: The page is not full protected. You simply were not autoconfirmed yet, which requires both time since registered AND making a number of edits to other non-protected areas. I believe you have it now though. -- ferret (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I can confirm what ferret was saying - per WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, you simply hadn't met the requirements until extremely recently. Also, you may want to take it easy on lecturing people on policy until you have a better grasp on Wikipedia and how it works - if you feel edits like this are appropriate for Wikipedia, then you have a lot to learn still. Page protection exists for this very reason - to keep inexperienced editors from making ill-conceived edits like this. Your edit was 80% unsourced and 20% sourced to a random Youtuber. 100% not acceptable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: "100% not acceptable" take away that one hundred and replace it with a simple three. Sure, linking to a "random" YouTuber (who isn't all that random, he has many subs y'know), may not be the best thing to do in a popular Wikipedia article, but accusing the edit of being 100% unacceptable is quite immature when your claim is false. UltraChas (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The edit is pretty much 100% unacceptable from a sourcing view point as well as making sweeping generalizations that no sourcing will ever support. This discussion should occur either on the article's talk page or your own now. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of best-selling game consoles (XBox 360 and XBox One sales figures)

Respectfully, I spent hours doing research into the XBox 360 and XBox One sales figures and provided more citations that most of the other entries in this article. I also replaced a lot of broken references which you simply reverted back. I don't see how you can justify reverting my contributions on the grounds of 'several unreliable sources mixed in' when most references were reputable sites like IGN, Windows Central, Statista, and Variety, and of the lesser known websites all of the information was reported on multiple news outlets. Both Statista and IHS Markit are reputable market global information and statistic analysis firms so I don't see how you can discount their figures. Please restore my contributions and simply replace any "unreliable" sources you have with more reputable ones that reported the same information. I only had a single VGChartz link and the article's information was reported elsewhere. - Matticus333 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Both Stastisa and VGChartz are unreliable for this. Stastia often uses VGChartz as it's data source (You can check the listed sourcing on their pages), and VGChartz has been declared unreliable on Wikipedia for years. The IHS Markit source is fine. You're free to restore your edit with changes. I would remove all of the outdated information, which is often unreliable sourced or since denied (I.e. EA "leak" and MS denial), and just clutters it up. We don't need a running history. Just cover the last official tally and the current IHS Markit estimate. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Thanks Ferret. - Matticus333 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Succession

Hi,

I noticed you reversion here and it reminded me of a very similar situation with Bullfrog Productions, Mucky Foot Productions, Lionhead Studios, and Lost Toys. I had put Bullfrog as the predecessor company in the latter two companies' articles but those statements were removed because of concurrent existence. I reverted that using basically the same logic you did. Was I right to do so and iss there some sort of consensus regarding this? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would say that companies and products are a different context. With NES/SNES, it's clear that the SNES was meant to be a successor and the next generation of console for Nintendo, regardless of the fact they didn't immediately halt NES production. In the case of corporate entities you have a muddier situation that deals with legalities, corporate registrations, ownership, etc. -- ferret (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, in this case, they were founded by people from Bullfrog who intended to continue its spirit. I'd certainly call them successors to Bullfrog. Adam9007 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
{{Infobox company}} doesn't seem to offer any guidance, only that the field should only be used for a defunct company. I would generally think though that it's intended to show the company (or companies) that acquired ownership/property/rights from the defunct entity. -- ferret (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this is worth a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games? I mean, Peter Molyneux co-founded Bullfrog, and later left to co-found Lionhead. I daresay there are many who would consider Lionhead a successor to Bullfrog in that regard (I know the gaming press seemed to). Same when he left Lionhead to co-found 22Cans. 22Cans is likely considered a successor to Lionhead. Adam9007 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Less a question of video gaming and more a question of companies. Would suggest opening the topic on Infobox company's talk page if you want to start somewhere. -- ferret (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page watcher) I think it’s different when you’re talking about products than people/companies. I mean, there’s no way around it, the SNES was a newer, more technologically advanced product that offers the same exact functions of the NES. It’s clearly a successor. It’s not necessary for a production instantly to be a replacement... Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
the SNES was a newer, more technologically advanced product that offers the same exact functions of the NES Well, Lionhead was a newer company founded by people from Bullfrog and offered the same kind of products as Bullfrog did. I think the same logic applies. Adam9007 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Then maybe it should be a successor too? I dont know. We don’t require standardization everything, especially weird cross-sections like unrelated companies and products. I’m just saying, there’d definitely be WP:VG consensus and reliable sourcing to support ferret’s edit. I would have done the same. Sergecross73 msg me 23:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Twisted Metal was EGM Game of the Year for 1995

Hello,

Last night I correctly changed the entry for EGM's GOTY for 1995 to Twisted Metal. Believe it or not this is a fact. After searching for hours I couldn't find a scan of the EGM Buyer's Guide for 1996, but there are many references to this fact available elsewhere. Here are some examples:

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Interactive+games+developed+by+SingleTrac+take+top+industry+honors%3B...-a017821792

https://videogamegeek.com/videogamehonor/30575/1995-egm-game-year-winner

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/egms-buyers-guide-awards-and-scores-1994-2001.348237/

Please change it back, and in the future please do some research before you undo the work of others. Thanks.

-Bret — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.28.50 (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hold up. You make an unexplained change to an entry of a list frequently vandalized, providing no information nor updated sourcing. Then explain here that it took you hours of searching to try to prove the edit you made and couldn't really verify it, relying on a possibly-ok press release, an open database, and a (currently) offline forum. The latter two are unreliable on Wikipedia. But I need to do more research. Maybe you should explain edits and add additional appropriate sourcing at that time. See WP:BURDEN. -- ferret (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Ferret. Sorry I haven't handled this properly. It looks like you do a lot for the Wikipedia community and I appreciate that. Wikipedia is a valuable resource for billions of people because of good contributors like you. So truly thanks again. If I ever make changes to an article in the future I will more thoroughly explain my edits to avoid rightful suspicion.

Anyway, if a preponderance of the evidence from secondary sources is not good enough, I will consider trying to purchase the 1996 EGM Buyer's Guide and uploading a scan myself. Not sure if that's legal or what tho? I see now how questions of sources can be quite complicated.

What would you think of this as being a sufficient source: the very first line of the Twisted Metal 2 review on page 72 of EGM issue #90 reads: "Here it is-the sequel to EGM's Game of the Year."

https://retrocdn.net/images/a/a6/EGM_US_090.pdf

Thanks, Bret

Atari VCS problems.

Hello Ferret, I've been editing the wiki pages for Atari products because the Predecessor and Successor parameters were a bit messed up and incorrect, making mentions to the wrong products or not mentioning them at all.

So it came to me as a surprise that one of my edits was reverted by you on the Atari Jaguar page. I made mention of the VCS as the next product in their line of consoles, but you reverted it with this to say;

Not a successor. The new VCS is a different company that bought the Atari name. No direct relation at all.

The VCS is being made by Atari, SA instead of Atari Corporation, but I don't understand why it shouldn't count as a successor to the Jaguar in some way, because if so, shouldn't the Jaguar not be related to the Atari 7800 and Atari XEGS since the Jaguar was made by Atari Corporation instead of Atari, Inc.?

Also, what is the criteria for Template:Atari hardware? If Atari SA doesn't count shouldn't it be edited to remove the VCS from the list?

These are all genuine questions, I'm just confused and I'd like some clarification. Sorry for bothering you with such a trivial question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcoTangerino (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarcoTangerino: Specifically in regards to successor/predecessor: The new Atari VCS has no relation to the Jaguar at all. There is a two decades gap between them, they share no hardware or software design, none of the individuals who worked on Jaguar are involved with VCS and it is a completely different company making the product (despite owning the brand/IP). There is no marketing or sources that claim they have a relation. They are all Atari-branded products, but in the sense of having any historical relationship (Such as the SNES succeeding the NES as a direct and obvious hardware generation), there is none. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Atari, Inc -> Atari Corporation... In that particular instance, Warner sold the division as a whole to someone else. In effect the entire company simply changed names and ownership, but was still the same company. After 1998, there no longer was an Atari company at all, it was completely dissolved and only the brand/IP remained, which was sold several times before being bought by Infogrames, who later renamed to Atari SA. -- ferret (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

noicon

I removed the noicon parameter because I hadn't seen it before, and it was listed as an invalid parameter on the template's monthly error report. It hadn't been added to the Template Data documentation for the template, so the error report labelled noicon as an invalid parameter. I've added noicon and the other Wikidata parameters to the Template Data so that they won't be tagged as invalid in future reports. - X201 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@X201: Was not aware of that report, thanks for fixing the data (This latest round of parameters was added by someone else). I daily check Category:Pages using infobox video game with unknown parameters and correct any issues reported through it. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
We're doing the same thing from different directions. [this report] does the same but also points out problems with valid parameters but incorrect values like italic_title which only has three valid values. - X201 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Nintendo Switch games

Once again, I'm currently focusing on the list of games again. DO NOT edit the page UNTIL I'm done with it. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: If you make a disruptive edit like this again, pushing entries that are clearly mislabelled and repeatedly listed, or if you tell someone to not edit a page again until YOU are done, I will block you. Is that clear? -- ferret (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure, whatever, at the very least keep some of them intact (that had the correct info from Nintendo.com) instead of undoing them altogether. That make in clearer for you? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zacharyalejandro: It's not my job to try to salvage your edit to get the 3-4 valid entries out of the 20 or so invalid ones. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well I was trying to edit at the same time as doing other things in life so trying to focus on one and not the other and trying to not make sure that the page redirects itself, unsaving my hard work, tends to make me angry. And I'm doing this on my phone as I don't have internet or another possible way of doing it. Or what I extremely have trouble with, is copying the text into my sandbox, which I forget to do frequently. I just do it the way I do, and if I have any errors with it later, I fix it later. I don't get how you guys cannot understand this simple thing around Wikipedia. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Zacharyalejandro: I don't get how you don't understand you can't publish incorrect edits for the whole world to see and expect others to deal with it for you. It's disruptive, and you've already left the list in a broken state for over 9 hours this week. If you can't edit reliably on your device, don't. If you can't come to terms with how to edit with others and that your problems are not our problems, don't edit on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: Okay, I took a lot of time and resorted the amount of games plus adding a few more tweaks to the list. Hopefully this cleared up the numerous outbursts I made earlier. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Snow Closed Casual Deletions

What is a SK #2 and thank to stop my anger nomination article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.134.86 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frapril: WP:SK. Reason #2 is that the AFD is opened as a form of vandalism or disruption. Please log into your account. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand it, but I exprimed my Anger about the fact that many of my favorites casual games are not considered notable on Wikipedia. I know it’s a good way exprime is rage. But what mean SK? Thank again.Frapril (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frapril: I linked it for you above: WP:SK. The acronym means "Speedy Keep". -- ferret (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but if i want make a real deletion article, I can?Frapril (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Frapril: I'll be blunt and direct: If I see you AFD any of these articles again, individually or in a group, I'll immediately block you. They are bad faith nominations that clearly do not follow our policies on deletion. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
But if i create with not anger? Can we speak about it? I don’t understand how make it. English Wikipedia is not my main Wikipedia (the French one I use the must) and I want to do unconstrutive ADF, but ifI find a real un constructive article, what can I do?Frapril (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

GSG

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

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

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

@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)
Yeah, I noticed the lack of discussion. It was just a bit confusing. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
Thumbs up icon SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)

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)

@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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferret/Archive_9&oldid=1187270987"