Jump to content

User talk:Ferret/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Why can't "Nintendo" be in front of "Wii" or "Wii U"

If the other consoles can be referred to have the company's name on it, why can't the Wii and Wii U? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSmashingHit (talk • contribs) 23:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheSmashingHit: For some consoles, the brand is part of the title. For others, it isn't. That's all there is to it. It's the "Wii" and the "Wii U". Nintendo isn't part of the name. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2017 (UTC)-->

Is it a rule to ONLY refer to them without the "Nintendo" part? That nobody must ever say "Nintendo Wii"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSmashingHit (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's a rule, it's just that, as ferret said, that's not how they most commonly branded the product. Why does this matter so much to you? Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

MOBA

We've ended up with two images of Vainglory because it's the only game to have licenced any of its screenshots under a CC licence. Or at least the only one whose screenshots have made it to Commons. If it seems borderline promotional, we could just not mention the game title in the caption.

I thought the pictures I'd used did a lot more to convey what the genre actually looked like, to a reader entirely unfamiliar with the games in question. The map showing trees and bridges gives an immediate sense of scale, in a way that the abstract geometric one doesn't (it could be any size, and if anything brings to mind a baseball diamond with room for one person at each corner). The close-up screenshot shows what typical gameplay looks like when zoomed in, that it's 3D polygon models shooting at each other, and viewable in close-up, rather than sprites or tiny dots on a map or whatever else. --Gapfall (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gapfall: It'd be best to post this to the article's talk page for a broader audience. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll raise the subject of the map illustration. Do you think we still shouldn't have a closeup, now that I've answered your question about why the second image also happens to be from Vainglory? --Gapfall (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gapfall: I think using repeated images from a relatively lesser known game, because they are available on Commons, does represent a slight NPOV or promotional issue. NFCC wise, we should be ok with 1-2 local enwiki images, such as from League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

AIV

User:Edward20854 - per User:Edward rong? 2001:E68:542E:805D:8C57:F442:F6F9:83E8 (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Also blocked. @Samf4u: FYI. -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Revdel needed

Severe BLP vandalism at Josh Lueke and Ethan Kath. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: I took care of ones from October but do not have time to comb further back. Some of these are a bit borderline (There are apparently valid allegations against both subjects?) but others are clearly too far. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just talking about stuff in the last few days, and I didn't realize there were valid accusations until after my report, but either way, some of those edits were BLP vios. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Tornado chaser: I'm fine with erring on the side of caution. For any admin who comes by about this topic: Feel free to reverse me on these if they were not really over the line. -- ferret (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Skaal

and moving the hatnote. I also added a hatnote to Bloodmoon. 104.153.72.218 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My talk page

Hi An user vandalised my talk page. Could you ban him to edit again it ? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I have warned the user. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I have open a RfC. Could you froze (with you tools or with a warning) the page ? --Panam2014 (talk) 14:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
How about you warn him for vandalising my talk page then? GippoHippo (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@GippoHippo: He hasn't vandalized your talk page. He left a warning, whether valid or not, and you removed it. He did not restore it repeatedly as you did at his talk page. I have separately warned him about edit warring. @Panam2014: It would be best your stop sending messages to GippoHippo and contain yourself to the talk page of the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

he continued to revert me. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
And he's been warned for it. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
He continues to add fake news. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Vice-President of Zimbabwe could you stop that. I have been warned and him too but he continue to add information by referring to his own interpretation of the constitution. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Its not my own interpretation, its the interpretation of these experts from these cited sources. [1] [2] These sources are pretty damn clear as to who is or isn't in power at any of the given moments. Additionally, 'my interpretation' as you like to call it is agreed with among the other editors of these Zimbabwe articles, yet you turned up out of nowhere from writing about the Yemeni Crisis and are suddenly an expert on Zimbabwe. I will continue to make edits if I know they are correct and accurate, any time I have queried an edit, I have asked on a talk page. Have you? I rest my case.@Ferret: I'd also like to bring to your attention that after you warned Panam2014 with a block, he proceeded to make another edit on Phelekezela Mphoko. GippoHippo (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not interested in the content in question, use the article's talk page not mine. -- ferret (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Enough is enought. His friend continues. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-news-sc-national-byo-122706.html
  2. ^ http://www.herald.co.zw/experts-clear-the-air-on-succession/

Why split List of Nintendo Switch Games into 2 parts?

The splitting of the List of Nintendo Switch Games into multiple parts seem problematic. As the list is constructed as a table that can be sorted as by any column splitting it alphabetically breaks this functionality. If a user wants to sort on exclusivity, release date etc. they will only see half the chart sorted as desired.

The justification for this change; that the size is (or is expected to grow) too large, seems dubious. The functionality of the table is greater when it is intact, and in the modern web a wiki page of any size is tiny in terms of total data compared to many regularly visited pages on the internet.

Is there a standing wiki policy that drove this change? If so perhaps this policy needs to be reconsidered with regards to these sorts of tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.148.22 (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT covers a lot of it, in a general sense. It was a very basic, non-controversial split. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Serge basically said it. Otherwise, any discussion on this should probably be at the list's talk page, where I've already created a discussion. This is pretty common and routine. -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Ironically, another editor just had issues at List of members of the Lok Sabha (1952–present), a massive list that Chrome almost chokes on trying to edit. -- ferret (talk) 01:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy

Why is their Twitter page an acceptable source, but their Facebook page isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownAssassin1819 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you read Ferret's edit summary, it seems pretty clear that its not about source reliability, but rather, that the content wasn't worth adding. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

SLOW YOUR ROLL

Yeah, don't delete my page, Bluehole, inc.. It's obviously a notable company with one of the most sold PC GAMES OF ALL TIME, and obviously an article stub, thus the STUB tag. Thanks for your understanding.. I'm not a robot and I'm not using scripts to automatically write and delete articles, so I hope you can understand my human perspective, that content takes time to develop.. that deleting said content makes it more difficult..

Neuroelectronic (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neuroelectronic: The article has already been through a recent AFD discussion, so it has been established that notability is not met at this time. Additionally, a well developed draft, as far as content goes, already exists. Sourcing is still too weak though. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)

Maybe you should protect the article, there have been a lot of vandalism on it today! Govvy (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: It's close to that. There have been many constructive edits as well but as it becomes more disruptive, it may have to be. -- ferret (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Might want to consider making semi at least a week. The fanboys are livid, to put it mildly. HalfShadow 21:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: It's on my watchlist, will extend as necessary. Would like to do it as short as possible, of course. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

response to your message

I thought i was editing my own thing, not a template! SOrry!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derecwc (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Derecwc: No problem, please be careful. :) -- ferret (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing on Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game).

How was changing grammar and adding a fact vandalism and unconstructive? Can you elaborate? You also said something about Reddit, do you mean the popular forum website? The changes I made had nothing to do with "Reddit's backlash" and as I said before, I was only stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aaronth07: The article was locked due to the constant addition of pay-to-win and related phrases in the lead, which is inappropriate and disruptive. We have the controversy well covered already. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: It seems you have not covered it well. I only see two references to the controversy, one at the controversy section, and another at the top. Despite this, Google has not included the pay to win aspect in their card when you search the game on Google. You also said that it is "inappropriate and disruptive" to state the game is pay to win. Can you explain how it is "inappropriate and disruptive" to state a fact?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the soap box for this. We've covered the controversy in detail, and summarized it in the lead. What Google shows is not our concern, nor would we put pay-to-win in the lead sentence on any article. It's clear POV pushing. -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you put pay to win in the lead sentences? It seems like wikipedia has covered every major fact about the game in the first two sentences except its pay to win aspect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Not responding huh, I guess Wikipedia (and mainly, their Admins) will censor anything they don't like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronth07 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

He already answered this. Rather than badgering him with the same question over and over again, please learn the difference between an encyclopedia and an editorial. If you want to document how journalists perceive the game to be "pay to win", discuss on the articles talk page on how to add that constructively to a "reception" or "controversy" section. Sergecross73 msg me 04:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Hello dear Ferret, I have successfully replied to your post in my talk page. Take a look! Milad Mosapoor (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2017 (GMT)

a brief question

Hey, I had this account for a while but just started to edit more recently, so I'm still a bit new to this (don't judge plz). On Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon, you removed my edits and sources because the sources were not reliable. My question is, what do you believe is a reliable source? Would comments from forums work? Because it is really obvious that the community is extremely split on these games, and I believe this information should not be omitted, but I don't know if some sources are good enough. WikiBrainHead (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Click on this to read about reliable sources, though really, the short version is, we use content written by websites that employ professional journalists and writers. Websites like IGN or Eurogamer. So actually, the opposite of things like forums, messageboards, and personal social media accounts. In the meantime, it may help to use WP:VG/S as a help guide - it's got a ton of examples of websites/sources that are approved for use, or to be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Serge covered this pretty well. In essence, we have to have a reliable secondary source cover the fan reactions. Forums or user polls are considered user generated, and cannot be used. But if a reliable source like IGN were to write an article about it, it could be used. As for identifying reliable sources, Serge's links will help, but the bottom line is anyone can make a website these days, so we have to evaluate and vet them like this. If you have a particular source you feel meets the grade, bring it up for discussion at WT:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Constant vandalism

Hey, I am probably asking the wrong person, but I don't know where to report stuff like that, and I saw that you are an admin, so here it goes. This page: Ajit V. Pai is being constantly vandalised right now. The first sentence right now says several slurs, even though the page has extended protection (i can't even revert the slurs). You should probably lock it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl.i.biased (talk • contribs) 02:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Karl.i.biased: It looks like it was already reverted and another admin has deleted the offensive edits. The editor responsible was blocked from further editing. -- ferret (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Note of caution

While I have zero problem with the format change myself, please note that changes like this are against WP:DATERET (ISO-like dates are acceptable in references), and you might rile some editors that insist on using a certain date format. --MASEM (t) 01:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware, and I often skip cases like this. I consider it a bold edit to unify formats, as it was not completely uniform. If someone contests though I do not feel strongly about it. -- ferret (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Xbox 360 Enhanced

As you requested her are sources, both primary, and secondary;

Sources below

  • Primary:
Xbox One X Enhanced Xbox.com offical list
  • Secondary:
Halo 3 and other Xbox 360 games are being enhanced for Xbox One X - The Verge
Three More Xbox 360 Games Are Getting Enhanced For Xbox One X - IGN
Play Three Generations of Games Better on Xbox One - Major Nelson
Xbox One X enhanced games list, specs, VR and everything else we know about the renamed Project Scorpio - Eurogamer
Skate 3 to be enhanced for Xbox One X Alongside Mirror's Edge and Gears of War 3 - Eurogamer

Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of speedy deletion notice on Petscop

Hello! I see that you've nominated Petscop for speedy deletion, due to it being previously deleted and not containing secondary sources that contain significant coverage. However, I have referenced several secondary sources of significant coverage, the most major of them being The New York Times and the Game Theorists, but there are also others. I don't believe that the adding of this notice is necessary, and since it had already been removed after The1337gamer's adding of it, it seems that others agree with me on this. I hope you don't mind, and feel free to tell me why you disagree, if you want to. CipherCraft618 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@CipherCraft618: I did not add a speedy deletion tag. I added a notability tag, which is certainly still a concern. NYT and Kotaku are the only two reliable sources in the article. A notability tag does not trigger any sort of deletion process. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: I suppose I can understand why YouTube videos are unreliable, however, the three videos in question did undeniably result in an increase in popularity for the series, which is significant, so I don't really see any alternative to keeping the sources around. Any suggestions? CipherCraft618 (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@CipherCraft618: Wikipedia isn't really concerned about the popularity of things. We are concerned about lasting notability demonstrated by significant in-depth coverage by secondary reliable sources. These youtube videos do not add to that, as they are not reliable. Youtube channels for the most part fall under WP:USERG and WP:Self-published. -- ferret (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret: I realize it's hard to give a solid definite number for these kinds of things, but about how many sources would be enough for the article to be considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CipherCraft618 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
@CipherCraft618: I'd say 8-10 to be on the safe side of surviving another AFD. -- ferret (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Mini Ninjas vandal

The one you just blocked, in case you aren't aware, is a Maelbros, some kid in France with a wild imagination, methinks. Perhaps you might want to keep an eye on said IP range for more Maelbros socks. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Blakegripling ph: Thanks for the LTA note. I have a couple of the recent pages watch listed already. They actually are getting caught by various template maintenance categories now, as they keep reverting to old broken syntax. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sam Catalfamo

Thank you. There may be more socks involved, but you've blocked the most recent and prolific accounts. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ClassicOnAStick

I see you've blocked ClassicOnAStick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the past for troublesome infobox changes. I was going to reach out to them when I saw this in my watchlist, which adds the children parameter despite no children being mentioned in the article. Then I saw the edit before that one which includes the famous <br /> tags you have warned them about repeatedly.LM2000 (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: clarification.

Hey there, LM, I'm here to explain why I made that change. I was referring to his official obituary as seen here but I did fail to communicate this fact. Rewind Wrestling (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I would have taken that bit to your talk page but you previously haven't responded to queries.LM2000 (talk) 06:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems like this resolved on its own, I don't see a need for me to add anything. -- ferret (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification

@Ferret:Hi, just wanted to tell you that we have solved this issue without any further input from you. Thank you for having the patience to take the time to deal with the issues on the Zimbabwe Articles. --GippoHippo (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANV

So then if users who habitually add unsourced content are not technically vandalising and never explain their edits, what can be done about them? If WP:ANV is not the appropriate avenue for this, what is? I surely hope you don't suggest I bring up their behaviour at a drama board like ANI. The warnings to editors like this are just ignored while they continue adding unsourced content. While I do search for sources sometimes, it's not any editor's responsibility aside from the editor adding the material to source it per WP:BURDEN. Ss112 14:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, so it doesn't belong at AIV. Please re-read the instructions at the top of WP:AIV, as well as Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, which directs you to AN/I for any reasons not otherwise listed for AIV, EW, UAA, etc. Blocking should be a last resort, this editor is adding valid albeit unsourced content. At the time of your report, the user hadn't been given a single warning or even a friendly message about or explaining unsourced additions either. WP:BURDEN aside, we still have to assume good faith. -- ferret (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
What ferret says above goes along with what I've told you in the past too. You need to communicate issues with people better. Too often you don't even make any sort of attempt to explain what's wrong to people, you just revert and report. If it's not blatant vandalism (Adding the word "poop" sporadically through an article, declaring World War 2 began in 2012, etc) then you need to make an effort to reach out to the editor through their, or related articles, talk pages. Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see their talk page. I warned them multiple times. I have explained in reverts ("Needs a source"). I've also read the instructions at ANV multiple times. I reported them there because plenty of editors (while it may not be correct to do so) report users who habitually add unsourced content to that board, oftentimes resulting in blocks of the reported editors. They have received at least five warnings, including a first-level warning last month about not changing content without adequate sourcing. I thought that sufficed. It is also unrealistic to expect that across 10 or so articles, I'm going to open a discussion on each talk page about the user adding unsourced content when I'm not the one doing so. I have reached out to plenty of newbie editors in circumstances like this, writing a kind note on their talk page about the issues with their edits. Most times they ignore it and continue on, so therefore I'm asking what can be done? Also Sergecross, the examples I've brought to you have been established editors who have been warring, would not let me post to their talk pages or already know better (so they don't need it explained to them), so bringing that up here isn't really relevant and not something I want to get into. I would also think AN/I should be a last resort, should it not? Ss112 14:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Reported at 13:59 to AIV, user last edited at 14:01, warned about unsourced additions at 14:12. If you disagree with my view on the matter and whether this was a blockable offense that should have been actioned at AIV, feel free to bring it up at AN/I. We clearly disagree whether this case warranted a block. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I sent them a late warning after you refused to block them. I reported them first because they had previously been warned sufficiently (as well as blocked) and reverted just earlier. I also always thought admins were of the opinion that things should be taken to AN/I as a last resort/after a continued pattern of problematic behaviour, not "this new editor has been adding unsourced content today". Ss112 14:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I've given my answer on the topic. -- ferret (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't still asking if you would reconsider blocking them, I just don't think it's the right thing to take to ANI. Ss112 15:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, ANI should be a last resort, and it's why I offer up my own personal "ANI" on my talk page, so people can avoid it altogether, because trips there can often backfire or be stressful based on who responds to your query. I think you're missing the point here. We're not saying "you've got a great ANI case here, go for it". We're saying, "that's the only avenue you've got left, because it's fundamentally not vandalism and we don't personally support blocking at this point". If "AIV" and "random Admin" is out, then ANI's all you've got. But I certainly wouldn't actually recommend that - I think you'd get reprimanded and no one would get blocked. Look, it's unfortunate that they're not adding sources, and that needs to be remedied, or he's likely moving towards another block. But adding Grammy Nominations, which were true, shows that they're here trying to help, not "vandalize" the place. And it doesn't appear that they've ever been linked to any help pages on references (like WP:REFB) before, they've just been given a bunch of robotic template warnings. I recommend trying to actually communicate with them like a human. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Whoops!

I do apologise that I reverted your edit without even looking at them. I thought for a moment that you removed something that was important. Neverrainy (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Neverrainy: No biggie, it was a mess to clean up. -- ferret (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me...

Why won't you remove the protection on the LGBT Video Game Characters page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:75B4:4473:B506:1544 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Because you come by every so often to repeat the same disruptive edits on different IPs. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

But the content I remove isn't even important.2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:8DEC:E3F6:42EC:F333 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, others disagree. Your edit notes indicate you have some sort of issue or agenda against the details in question, such as claiming the character's designer should apologize for revealing the details. Wikipedia isn't the place for soap boxing. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? It's a stereotype.20:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:8DEC:E3F6:42EC:F333 (talk)

There's nothing further to discuss on this topic. Tracer is a lesbian. There is nothing "stereotypical" about that, it simply is, and there's nothing for her character creator to apologize for. As long as you're constantly coming back on different IPs to disrupt the article, it will have to remain protected. Drop it and move on. -- ferret (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

http://viledeer.co.vu/post/166114333526/profoundlyluckyfox-viledeer I have my reasons. Also I'm not homophobic.2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:8DEC:E3F6:42EC:F333 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I..what? You're arguing about the sexuality of a fictional character -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 21:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@There'sNoTime: The IP's been at it for almost a year. The article is protected so I haven't been bothering the block lately. Seems to boil down to some sort of fan fiction outage that the character was explicitly labelled lesbian instead of open to anything. They've targeted other characters and games as well. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Such as?2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:DD11:40AD:E1F2:F8A1 (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Also, WhatsUpMoms shouldn't have any videos relating to Connie's death.2A00:23C4:6B52:6400:7449:E840:24CA:364A (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

File Upload Wizard

I was told that you might have the solution to a problem I am encountering. The file upload wizard does not seem to work for me. I click on it but it just changes the bottom where it says when it was last modified and who modified it for a second then goes back to the original screen. This is a problem because I find many missing album/single covers on the Wikipedia. I know you can’t upload those to Wikimedia because I have gotten many copyright strikes for it. I would greatly appreciate your help. DatBoy101 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@DatBoy101: Unfortunately I'm no expert on file uploads. I've uploaded maybe 5-6 files in my entire 10+ years. You might try a different browser though to determine if that's an issue. -- ferret (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought you might know. Thanks for the advice though DatBoy101 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@DatBoy101: Try the WP:Helpdesk. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Close discussions

Hey ferret, I would just like to ask since you are uninvolved in the discussions to do with Talk:President_of_Zimbabwe#Original_research and Talk:Vice-President_of_Zimbabwe#Legitimacy of Mphoko as Vice-President if you could remove the RfC tags and close both of these discussions as both situations have been resolved now. Thank You. GippoHippo (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ferret. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Heaney Oracle Harrassing Me

Hey Ferret, it would be greatly appreciated if you could deal with the account TheHeaneyOracle who is someone I know in real life, who deliberately created a wikipedia account once he realised I had one in order to harass me and also make acusations against me in order to try and get me banned from wikipedia, additionally, he has started sending me vandalism warnings on my talk page which are false and/or inaccurate. In addition to this, he accepted said award to do with 9/11 which he acknowledged was made in a humorous regard, therefore making that argument invalid. It would be really helpful if you could warn him against harassing me in the future. (The copy of what he wrote on my talk page is written below). Thank You GH (talk) 13:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@GippoHippo: TheHeaneyOracle has been indef'd blocked, clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and just here to harass. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@GippoHippo: As information, the barn stars and other messages you left on the talk page for TheHeaneyOracle are also inappropriate. Please don't engage in activities like this in the future. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your assistance, I won't mess with the barn star thing again. GH (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Nintendo Company

I saw your edit at Template:Nintendo Company. There is no such template as "Template:Nintendo video game hardware". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: It's at Template:Nintendo hardware. Please don't create unnecessary large navbars. You can easily see yourself this navbar already exists in the articles. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Aditya958

You might want to revoke their talk page access. While they haven't edit their talk page since they were blocked, I've just removed quite a bit of vandalism from their talk page. Thank you! 😉 Hastiness (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hastiness: I wouldn't say it's called for just yet. Misguided edits in response to their warnings, but not quite vandalism. If they repeat that while blocked I'll revoke (and likely indef). -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

iQue

Gonna have to disagree with you on that, Jones. The iQue is part of Nintendo's history trying to market consoles in China, so its successive attempts at least merit a mention. So yeah, don't agree with scrubbing it from the article entirely. Not reverting you though, that would hardly be sporting - not interested in getting in a revert war. Anyway, happy holidays and all that good stuff. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Metascore

Hello Ferret!😃 Thanks for the previous advise (it helped me a lot)😄 but I don't think Darkwarriorblake is trying to cooperate.😕 He again added the Metascores of Batman: Arkham Asylum down the reception table.😑

I really think that you can make him understand this stuff ☺(Please do let me know if I'm wrong here 😅). Thanks for all the help and advise of yours.😀 Pure conSouls (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: Best I can offer is to suggest bringing it up at WT:VG and either asking for more opinions at the article's talk page, or pinging the involved parties to visit the project talk page. -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help!☺ Pure conSouls (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed categories

Hi. I think it's actually a good idea to remove the article Assassin's Creed II from Category:Action-adventure games, Category:Open world video games and Category:Stealth video games.

Reason: Assassin's Creed II is already in Category:Assassin's Creed, which is in all the categories above. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero: Probably valid to remove them due to parent cat then, but that wasn't the rationale given and I've had to revert good faith efforts by that editor several times. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I see. It's true it wasn't the rationale given. I'm going to remove the categories again then, but if there's some reason to readd them feel free to do so. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Then again, I guess I'll change my mind. I checked a few other video game articles and they have the genre categories even if they are inside a game category like that, so for now I'll readd Assassin's Creed II's categories. If Ubisoft decided to create lots of Assassin's Creed games of different genres in the future, my reason for removing the categories would be a moot point anyway. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Personally I think the genres are important enough to be listed. The large amount of trivial categories for "Set in..." and "Portraying..." are much less important, IF the number of categories is an actual concern. I don't think it's a big deal though. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

hi, previously i have posted a nofollow link, which is deleted by the moderator of wikipedia please help me to post the link rather getting it to be deleted from wikipedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloggerinfo (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Short answer is no, its spam. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

dayzmod edits reverted

could you be a little more clear as to why these were reverted?

The data is pertinent and lists official links to bohemia as well as the community resources associated with dayzmod. If it's simply formatting, any help is appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski.z.goggles (talk • contribs) 19:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ski.z.goggles: WP:ELNO #10 and #11. We do not include social media sites and fan sites, especially not in the prose itself. The official site is enough to lead a reader to these resources. As for WP:NOTCHANGELOG, #4, we do not include software changelogs sourced to primary subject, only important updates receiving coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


ok, so A little guidance please. The article describes when the mod was first released. I'd like to make sure there is a notation that it is still being developed, when a release occurs and highlights from that release. The forums link I added is all that is left from Bohemia (who owns arma2/arma2oa). The dayzmod.com link no longer works (down, abandoned by bohemia) The "official" community sites for the mod are really just the development discord and github.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski.z.goggles (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

We aren't really concerned about the updates of the mod over time, unless important new features that are covered by reliable secondary sources take note. Sites like IGN, Eurogamer, Polygon, Kotaku, etc. If none of these sites are ever talking about the continued community support of the mod, we can't include anything. Replacing the dead official site with the official forums would probably be ok, but linking Reddit and Discord would not. -- ferret (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think its fair to note that the mod is still being community developed. There is a section about development and it notes its been turned over to the community (in 2012).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ski.z.goggles (talk • contribs) 02:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not about fairness. Everything on Wikipedia most be verifiable, and generally backed by secondary reliable sources. If those don't exist, we don't include it. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time 3D

Hello ferret! I've seen that Ocarina of Time (Original version) is removed from the open world video games category, so should we remove its HD version as well? I didn't played the game but think that its just a remastered port with little changes for the 3DS (not sure though). Pure conSouls (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, sorry about that. I reverted the edit because I had no knowledge of said discussion and I’ve seen instances where a Category is removed incorrectly without explanation. After also reviewing the evidence, I also have to agree with the decision that was made. As a fellow editor though, I shall keep a look out for any credible information that may change the outcome.Dohvahkiin (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is resolved now.😅 Pure conSouls (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Video game generations

Thank you for your explanation and for making me aware of the discussion. That seems to confirm my hunch; a number of people seem to see eye to eye with JGoodman when he writes "The generations as we classify them today are partially a construct of original research conducted here on Wikipedia." Unfortunately, this is a systemic problem in Wikipedia, which takes a lot of patience to solve, if it can be solved at all. But maybe my question at Talk:History of video games for a referenced definition can provide some leverage in fixing the mess. Either we get a definition that we can then agree on and use productively, or we can debunk the whole thing as rigmarole. — Sebastian 22:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The best venue for this would be WT:VG. Keep in mind that the status quo won't change without a strong consensus. Recognizing the issues isn't the same as having a workable replacement. -- ferret (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Wise words. Your hunch is right; I don't have an alternative capable of commanding consensus. I'm not particularly interested in video games anymore, so I'm rather an occasional reader than an editor in this field. Since my question at Talk:History of video games#Generations of video games had no resonance, it may well be that I'm the only one feeling a need for clarification, so it's probably not worth trying to untangle the knot. — Sebastian 22:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Ferret, the entire point of adding those was that they could be vetted. I don’t know if any other way to do so.24.47.204.97 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The project page is a list of sources that have already been vetted. If you want new sites vetted, post to the talk page as new sections for discussion. -- ferret (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You may want to revise this sentence then: “If you know of a source that is not listed, please add it, but forbear adding checkmarks until consensus regarding the source's reliability has been achieved.”Dohvahkiin (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 Done -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Strangeguy91 is back with a new IP

Special:Contributions/2601:19A:4500:E7E:71DB:55A4:1C73:6793. The guy returned to the articles he always is on. Maybe page protection would be a good idea? Statik N (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Both pages were protected by other admins. -- ferret (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And olive branch & holiday wishes!
Ferret, please accept these holiday wishes :)

I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018.

Battlefront 2 Edit Reversion

Hi ferret hope you are well. I saw you reverted an edit I added that it was editorialized as it wasn't in the source. I do not agree but wanted to discuss since you have more experience here and maybe I can understand how this works a bit better. Here is the quote from the article:

"The analyst estimated cost per hour for a typical "Star Wars Battlefront II" player. He said if a gamer spent $60 for the game, an additional $20 per month for loot micro-transaction boxes and played around 2.5 hours a day for one year, it comes out to roughly 40 cents per hour of entertainment. This compares to an estimated 60 cents to 65 cents per hour for pay television, 80 cents per hour for a movie rental and more than $3 per hour for a movie watched in a theater, according to the firm's analysis."

2.5 hours a day comes out to over 900 hours of playtime in a year, which is far from average. Meanwhile the comparisons don't give specific requirements of use for the pricing and no sourcing on how the price is derived. It isn't necessarily an apples to apples comparison given the existence of theater passes and movie services like Netflix or costs of basic cable given the broad range of package prices. Maybe I worded my edit a bit vague but I was worried if I got overanalytical it would become very editorialized so I tried to summarize the source's source in context without opinion. What would be a better way to convey the fact that the claim that it is the cheapest form of entertainment comes with the caveat that the claim is based on a need to play a given game 900+ hrs/yr compared to other forms of entertainment being compared on a per use basis essentially?

I'm not looking to come off as combative or confrontational, just trying to get a better idea of how this type of content could be added without it falling under editorial since it is in the source of the cited source essentially.

Thanks so much! Rs180216 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Rs180216: The relevant policy is WP:Original Research. Essentially, because the source didn't point out that 2.5 hours a day is above average, or that the prices don't account for all factors, we cannot add our own commentary to explain that discrepancy. The best we can do is to make sure we credit the statements to the analyst, rather than wording them as a statement of fact. However, if another reliable secondary source decided to comment on the subject and point these issues out, we could use that to add detail. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello Ferret: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Talk on Template:Microsoft_video_gaming

See this. --uKER (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello and thanks for your help with creating Rec Room (video game)! I think I've now included most of the information that I consider relevant for a Wikipedia article. Since I'm quite biased towards Rec Room and this article, I've marked it for reassessment; I hope that was the correct move. Happy New Year! Martin Kraus (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ferret!

Happy New Year!

Ferret,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Iggy (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Report of vandalism

I'm not 100% sure who to report this to, but I'm guessing you probably had experience before and know what to do

A user has been constantly adding biased and inaccurate/unconfirmed data to KSHMR's career segment. The vandal in question is

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anmolbhat

Thank you for your time Amy wamey (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Amy wamey: I don't see any vandalism. The source calls it ghost production, and that's the edit that Anmolbhat is restoring. We report what sources state. -- ferret (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The source may also be biased, as ghost production implies that DVBBS, etc. Had nothing to do with the songs production (which is unconfirmed and possibly unconfirmable) there being the bias Amy wamey (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not our job to analyze a source like that. Putting "co-production" when the source does not state "co-production" is against our verifiability policy, and is original research. "Ghost production" is accurate, and doesn't necessarily mean "only production credit". -- ferret (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

An editor you indef'd (Aditya958)

It appears Aditya958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), whom you indef'd on 13 Dec, is back in the form of Kolbuni (talk · contribs). Kolbuni was just created on 29 Dec and is showing the same editing patterns and lack of communication as Aditya958, including repeatedly deleting a photo from Munda people, declaring it "racist" and accusing those who disagree of being sockpuppets. The last time they removed the pic, they were asked on their talk page what exactly they object to about the photo. They were non-responsive and continue to remove the photo without comment or engagement. (I suspect they are both socks of the prolific Purty sockmaster, who was also obsessed with the Munda and Ho articles as well as User:Arjayay, but their behavior is disruptive enough without having to make that connection.)--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@WilliamThweatt: Reverted and blocked. Behavioral evidence seems strong enough. -- ferret (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry.

I am sorry I was on lying to add content that came out. Danny231 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No original research

The discussion at Talk:PlayStation (console) has moved beyond this point, but I thought I should clarify it for you since it's covered in Wikipedia:No original research. The page states in the lead paragraph, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research." and "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." In other words, WP:OR applies only when original research is being added to the content of an article. Using original research as part of an argument about article content is perfectly legal. The removal of sourced content based solely on the editor's own findings is generally looked upon with suspicion, but it's not outright forbidden, and more to the point it's not covered by WP:OR.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...
ferret vandals
... you were recipient
no. 1551 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

You've been a bit stubborn and overconfident in your linguistic comprehension.

Hi there,

Do you think you could reply to my comment on the Talk:PlayStation_(console)#Copy_protection_wobble page? I went to quite some effort to find good sources and fix the misleading sentence.

I feel your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "wobble" caused you to overlook the importance of removing the previous wording and restore a definitively misleading and confusing statement.

It'd be good to know if you've gained a better understanding of the words involved, as I'd then feel like the time I spent explaining it wasn't wasted. Kind regards,

InternetMeme (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@InternetMeme: I let your edit stand and agreed it was clearer than before. I originally reverted you because you did not improve the text but outright removed it. The technical grammar difference of "wobble" and "wobbly" aside, removing it entirely was inappropriate. Your second edit, you clarified the text and did not remove it. I didn't think it warranted further discussion at that point, because it was becoming overly pedantic. Nothing further to discuss, nor do I believe it warranted you coming to my talk page to add a borderline personal attack. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to title this section as a personal attack. I've removed that implication from the title, as it certainly wasn't my intention. Please accept my apology for that.
The point of my comment was that you inappropriately reverted my edits without understanding the meaning of the words involved. That's a destructive thing to do, and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia's articles. You could have looked at my edit and though: "Ahh, this guy probably knows what he's doing, I'll leave this edit alone", but instead you went ahead and undid my correct edit. You assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Secondly, you've now falsely suggested that I removed the content entirely, whereas I clearly generalized an incorrect specific statement that said the discs contained a wobble, and instead altered it to the correct more general statement that they contained a copy protection mechanism. I didn't remove anything: I simply replaced an incorrect term with the correct one, which is a very normal an non-controversial edit to make. As some evidence of the misleading nature of the word, I've met a surprising number of people who believe that PlayStation discs wobble as part of their copy protection. It's important that Wikipedia doesn't exacerbate that misunderstanding.
Logically, I can see only two possible misunderstandings. Either you:
  1. Had a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "wobble", making you incorrectly believe that the matter was one of pedantry (it's not), or
  2. Had a misunderstanding of how PlayStation 1 copy protection worked, thus actually believing that the discs had a wobble (they don't).
Anyway, you incorrectly reverted two of my edits due to some misunderstandings, and you've made a lot of extra work for me for no reason. It'd be good to know you've learned something from the experience to improve your ability to gauge the merit of revisions in future. Admitting when you make mistakes is important to collaboration.
InternetMeme (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree. There's no misunderstand at all. I did look at your edits, and evaluated what you changed against the rationale expressed in your edit notes.
  1. You removed (or changed) sourced content, which previously matched the language in the reliable source that was in use in the article. Your rationale wasn't that the language was unclear or misleading, but to directly quote: "No mention of "wobble" in sources provided." I restored the edit and noted exactly where in the source it was mentioned.
  2. Your second edit note was "Unreliable source. I can't find any other claims of any wobble.", which I also disagreed with on the basis of the source being reliable, with no valid reason provided for why it wasn't.
Neither of these edit notes made any mention of the language being unclear or incorrect, but made claims against the source. After your second edit, you made a talk page section that again made no claim of unclear or improper language use, but instead made an unclear claim that the section contradicted itself and its sources (Which it did not), and that you had personally tested things so it couldn't be so. Only after I replied to this did you do further research and find that while term 'wobble' is technically incorrect, sources do exist showing (via patent) that Sony used a wavy or "wobbly" disk path. Only at this point did it become clearly about the language in use, and you updated the text to clarify (and not remove) that the disk had such a feature. This edit I agreed with and did not revert.
If you're going to come to my talk page and try to flex your linguistic muscles and complain about all your extra work, maybe the take away for you should be to write appropriate edit notes and make clear arguments for changes. Every edit on this topic since your last one to the article itself is an unnecessary waste of time for both of us that boils down to a pedantic worry over informal language use that has already been resolved. Admitting when you make mistakes is important to collaboration. Your made changes that I disagreed with, because they contradicted sources and removed content from the article. The result of my challenges to your edits is that the content ultimately was retained and improved. Stop wasting either of our time and move on. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi I was asking of you could delete this User talk:Bank of Zambia K100 note i accidentally created it when I was moving an article in place. Thank you. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Icem4k:  Done -- ferret (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

News to tell you!

I found a user who is a sockpuppet of User:Bankster! His name is: User:Brocooli. It signs his comments using BBC, Broke my Knee and Turtle Pee. Can you block Brocooli? Goodbye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.47.95.32 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2018‎ (UTC)

I'm pretty confident you meant @Binksternet, not Bankster. This looks to be in response to the reverts you received on your edits at Doki (TV series). I can confidently say these editors are not socking. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Removals

Hello ,Ferret , I am Alexander , let me explain you why I removed Warder , Hawke , Inquisitor and Commander Shepard from this list , it was a mistake to add them here because these protagonists are avatars of the player , players choose their gender , skin color , race ,personality , sexual orientation and even their background , every player has his/her own canon ( that's why I love these games ) , they can't be straight , gay , bisexual or asexual untill the player want them to be . I have a friend ( she is a lesbian ) and her canon in Mass Effect is female Asian lesbian Shepard , my canon is male white straight Shepard who looks like Mark Vanderloo . Once Casey Hudson said that their is no canon , which means that each player has his/her own canon . I hope you understand me . Oh , and I forgot to add Trevor Phillips from GTA V here , he is bisexual . P.S. Sorry for my not so good English because I am not American . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Freeman (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alexander Freeman: I understand the argument you are making here. I believe rather than removing these character though, we should denote them as "Potentially gay, potentially bisexual" and note that it is the player's choice. -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I completely support using "Potentially ..." as you said Ferret, even though I admittedly had used "bisexual" for these characters in the first place. I realize the "Potentially ..." is accurate. In my opinion, it's important to mention these characters one way or another because of the LGBT options. Many other games only allow straight relationships. Thanks for discussing this. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you , Ferret , for your understandment , and thanks to Daniel too . However , I didn't find that note about "the player's choice" , will you let me to note in that list that the sexual orientation of these characters depends on the players's choice ? Or you can do that by yourself because I have no much experience in such things . Anyway , thank you , guys ,I appreciate that what you did , thank you very much . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Freeman (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe its sufficiently covered now but will re-read the text and make tweaks some time today. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
@Alexander Freeman: The exact expression "player's choice" is not currently used. The notes attempt to provide a short explanation of the game mechanics with details to some extent. For example, Commander Shepard has this: "The player may choose to play as either male or female and customize his or her appearance and first name. In all three games, there are opposite-sex and same-sex relationship options for the player character." I wrote or edited all or most of these examples. Let us know if there's any mistake to be fixed. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Discord Question

Hello Ferret, certain articles I have viewed say that there is a Discord server for Wikipedia, and you are the server owner[1].
May I ask you, what is the invite link for this guild?
And as always, Cheers from CryfryDG. (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Discord". Wikipedia. 2017-03-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
@CryfryDG: The link is in the second paragraph of the page you linked above. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Italian name

Ferret I've corrected the name. Here's a pair of sources: Dictionary of Orthography and Pronunciation Dictionary of Pronunciation of Italian. May you please move back the page now? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asluoer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Asluoer: That is at odds with their own website, here, however. I'd suggest opening a discussion on the talk page. However, seeing as the article's name matches other Wikis, including itwiki, it is probably correct. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment requested

Could I get you to weigh in on this SPI regarding some blocks you made earlier this month? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Replied. -- ferret (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

protection of "list of European countries by average wage"

Dear Ferret, You have just protected "list of European countries by average wage". As for Central and Eastern European countries due to dynamic increase in monthly, quarterly wages and mainly for proper comparison with each other, it make sense to use the very last available data published by Statistical Offices. Please restore and use the wage data for December in case of Hungary as most of its neighboring countries (Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia) use the same period. Otherwise, the current information is misleading. It shows the past not the present not to mention that it is not possible to compare Hungary with its neighbors. At present it shows a difference, which does not exist. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attarte (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Attarte: Feel free to make an edit request on the talk page. Ensure you provide reliable sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

protection of "list of European countries by average wage" 2.0

Dear Ferret,

Reliable source can be seen on the page you protected: http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/gyor/ker/ker1712.html. „2017. decemberben a bruttó átlagkereset 327 700 forint volt, 13,5%-kal magasabb, mint egy évvel korábban.” In December2017 the average wage was 327 700 HUF, 13.5% higher than one year ago. It has always been seen there; however, at the moment the page uses data for the whole year (január-december) which wouldn't be a problem if all the Central and Eastern European countries used the same period. However, those countries, most of them use monthly data, a couple of them provide quarterly data. Only Slovakia uses data for the whole year; however, it is not provided by the Statistical Office which is… quite interesting, anyway. It would be useful to use recent data instead of data from the past taking into account the fact that as for Eastern and Central Europe there is a quite dynamic changes in wages. Of course, in January wages will be lower than in December, but it will happen in all countries in the region. The point is that Hungarian wages cannot be compared to the other countries in the region at the moment as most of them use the very last data while Hungary does not do so. There is a user, who are always mentioning propaganda when recent data (December) shows up in the page and she/he makes undo, which is probably a very fast and comfortable way of editing the page, but quite unfair. He did the same in case of Poland as for December. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attarte (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Attarte: Again, use the talk page of the article to make your requests. I have no interest in the content dispute beyond the fact that disruptive back and forth editing was occurring and needed protection to stop. -- ferret (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(The 2nd or 3rd place)

Hello Ferret!😀 I want to ask you that if a game comes on 2nd or 3rd position should we just mention its nomination or mention that it was a "Runner-Up" or "2nd Place" holder?😕

Please check the Assassin's Creed Origins "Accolades" section. Tobi reverted my 2 edits on this matter. I'm not quite sure about this thing.😐 Thanks in advance!😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: I think it would depend on how its announced in the sources. Typically I think we keep to "Nom" and "Win". If the awards officially say "X won, Y was runner up" then runner up would maybe be appropriate. This would essentially be a direct "awarding" of "runner up", "second place", "silver medal" kind of thing. Note that the awards themselves would need to state this clear, not just secondary coverage which may be using "runner up" informally to indicate other nominees. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable Source for third gen of home console

What I added was not reliable, but recognizable source for that address. At this point, there is no relatable and relieable source for me to find in google. Sorry for disappointing you, but my over-heated passion got me to do such a disloyal thing. Therefore, I hereby humbly apologize my action that cause your painful reaction for that source. 211.237.125.129 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what your hyperbole is all about, but blogs and self-published sources are not reliable. That's all. -- ferret (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

Information about when to use each template can be found in Template:More citations needed#Differences from related templates and Template:More footnotes/doc. Rupert Loup (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rupert loup: Fair enough, but the More footnotes template gives the incorrect perception that the article is properly sourced but is not using inline citations. It does use inline citations however, extensively. The issue is unsourced content that isn't in the current sources. Inlining the existing citations won't resolve them. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeff Kaplan Edit

You undid my edit to the Jeff Kaplan article citing "they [SIC] did not appear constructive." By what standard are you making this assessment? I think it is useful (constructive means "serving a useful purpose") to clarify that the handle Kaplan chose (and still uses on the Blizzard forums), Tigole, is part of a spoonerism for the term "bigole titties", a chauvinist reference to women. I request that you reconsider your decision and restore my edits. I await your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.181.65.15 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

My first message on a Talk page.

Yea. So thanks for undoing any edits I made on the page Roblox. I wanted to remove little sentences which apparently advertised about Roblox, but for some reason, a lot of words (like a whole paragraph) were mysteriously erased. I rarely make any edits on Wikipedia. But I do what I can to help. And I didn't know that writing a summary about edits was that important. I just hope I won't get banned or something.

--Devyash Mangra (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Devyash Mangra: You aren't at any risk of being blocked. Mistakes are fine, the message is just meant to let you know about it. -- ferret (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hey there. I've started a request for comment that you might be interested in – feel free to have your say when you get a chance. Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

UTV Software Communications

Hey there Ferret, would you be able to evaluate the format, layout and content for UTV Software Communications? I want to turn it into a good article. I've done plenty of revisions on it but I feel that having an evaluation and necessary edits by you can really improve it. Thanks for helping out. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: Not really familiar with the expected formatting of company articles, outside of what we generally see for video game companies. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for letting me know. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ferret,

Curious why my link got deleted, have you read the article? Data is backed up by reliable sources. Thanks! --Star Helix (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Star Helix: It's almost insulting you're asking this. The site is clearly a referral code spam site, regardless of the truth of current crowdfunding levels. It is not a reliable source. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: I'm sorry to hear that. What do you consider reliable sources? Just trying to learn something here.--Star Helix (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ferret: Maybe we should ask for a third opinion? This page is just an alternative to the randomizer. If articles like http://www.eurogamer.pl/articles/2017-05-21-kosmiczny-symulator-star-citizen-zgromadzil-ponad-150-mln-dolarow get approved, why not approve a researched <redacted spam link> (including sources). It doesn't even have adds on the page. I just find it a bit odd to dismiss an article without even reading it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Helix (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If you don't understand what I reliable source is on Wikipedia, please look over at WP:VG/S as a guide - it shows many examples of sources to use or stay away from. Ferret's right in his stance that overly-promotional websites like this are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Your time would be better spent trying to find better sources. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
There's no way a websites that's primary purpose is referral code spam will be used as a reliable source. The fact that the code isn't on the article isn't relevant, since it's clearly within one click as the home page fo the site. I've removed a link from your message, please do not post it again. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand the nature of the problem has to do with the domain name and has nothing to do with the quality of the article. Have a good day!--Star Helix (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Star Helix No, that's not what we said at all. And I just caught you trying to add that link elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
And blocked. It was clear spam from the start, but to insert the link after the discussion here was just silly. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferret/Archive_7&oldid=1077338698"