User talk:Dissident93/Archive 10

List of Smash Ultimate tournaments
There are tons of sources ESPN, Daily Esports, Famu, Dextero, Ezports Network, ESPN, Another ESPN, yes the sources are there they just haven't been added yet. I well start by adding five sources, but there are secondary reliable sources giving about 75% of tournaments listed significant coverage. Valoem talk contrib 10:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are no issues I'll go ahead and restore the list with additional sources. Valoem talk contrib 08:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Those are better, yes. We just can't base an entire list on a single (unreliable) publisher. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I added eight additional sources, also would you be interested in starting an article on Dota in esports or Dota 2 in esports? <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 04:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I had planned to make a Professional Dota competition article (back when the other similar pages were under that title; I can't seem to find the draft anymore though) years ago, and it's something I still plan on getting around to eventually. One of the things that held me back was the lack of a franchise page, which was finally created earlier this year (Dota) following the recent spinoffs that allowed it to be. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This Draft:Professional Dota competition has been restore I think we need about 8 sources then it can be mainspaced. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's it. I'll get around to it eventually, hopefully soon. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit war on Moon and Yo-kai Watch 4
Hi Dissident, please can you reply on the talk page topic Talk:List of Nintendo Switch games, so we can reach a consensus about how to move forward? As you made some edits I didn't really understand. Thanks. Kidburla (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Simeon Thomas
The way I understand suspensions, if it's for a finite number of games (or weeks), the suspension is over at the end of the season even if there are games/weeks remaining. If it's an indefinite suspension (like Josh Gordon currently), they stay on the suspended list until whenever their suspension is over. I think this is so players can collect offseason mini-camp, OTA, and training camp practice weekly salaries/stipends. If a player gets handed a four-game suspension during the offseason (see Golden Tate), the suspension doesn't start immediately, it starts when the regular season begins. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "they still had to be assigned to the active roster", Thomas is currently on the active roster. When the suspension was handed down he was already signed to an active roster contract.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of suspensions only accruing during actual game weeks, but by "assigned" I meant re-activated to the active roster. Unless I'm misunderstanding the process, the team themselves still have to make the transaction from reserve-to-active, even after the suspension is lifted by league officials (you see this on the transaction list as "promoted to the active roster" or something similar). But since this occurred right after the last week of the season, there might be some exception to this. In any case, it doesn't matter that much since his contract expires when the new league year begins in March. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good thought, and I was confused by the same thing. When a player's suspension is lifted, a team has three options: request a roster exemption for them for up to one week, immediately place them on the active roster, or cut them.
 * Nathan Shepherd had a roster exemption and then was placed on active roster :
 * 10/28: Suspension lifted by commissioner
 * 10/28: Exempt/commissioner's permission
 * 11/1: Counts on active list
 * Kareem Hunt was immediately placed on active roster when his suspension ended :
 * 11/4: Suspension lifted by commissioner
 * So in the case of Thomas, it looks like he's been re-activated for the offseason roster. I know it doesn't really matter either way, but as you know I like the templates and pages here to reflect the official roster designations. (Side note: the practice squads for non-playoff teams are technically still active until next Tuesday, and players on injured reserve and PUP stay on those lists until the new league year in March but it's not worth the fight for those.)  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quarterback
Being a starting quarterback is not reason to list a death even in 1997 in sports; there are 32 starting quarterbacks at a time, but more during a season, and considerably more during the span of a football career. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reasoning for singling out Haskins here. Why is everybody else immune to the tag, especially since Haskins is one of the only sourced entries in the list? Surely being a starting quarterback in the NFL (no matter when, it is still a statistically rare thing and receives massive media coverage) is more notable than some rapper and tennis player. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 10:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:1997. If you think others should be removed, let's discuss.  It should, however, be pointed out, that the other two entries for that date have over 9 entries in other-language Wikipedias, while Haskins only has 4.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nintendo DS Games list
I know this is probably not the place to discuss this particular issue. But according to the Nintendo DS Games list, I was wondering if you could fix the broken vgrtbl template? Zacharyalejandro (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Page looks fine to me? What's broken? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

NFL GM template redlinks
Please point me to the specific part of WP:REDLINK you are referencing.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cited the wrong guideline. WP:EXISTING has says to avoid redlinking subjects in navboxes who are not likely to have their own articles (which I'm arguing they don't because they've been redlinked for years with no recent indication of anybody attempting to create anything for them). However, the same guideline also conflicts with itself as it says to avoid listing unlinked text, so it seems like redlinks are actually preferred here (when they wouldn't be in most other cases). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that interpretation, I think since these navboxes represent a timeline and all topics should be notable, delinking is not the best approach.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the guideline agrees too. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert your edits and add back those redlinks.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Removing images
You must not remove images from articles! As you did with Masahiro Sakurai! Doing so harms Wikipedia! 0C70 PR0 (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is copyrighted and thus is not free use, nor does it have any indication of permission being granted for being used as such. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The image is CC-BY-SA 4.0!0C70 PR0 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the source then? The image on the SSB wiki states that it is "not eligible for copyright" and is thus public domain, but this is false. The original uploaded E3 video on Nintendo's YouTube account does not list anything regarding Creative Commons. Screencaps taken from the same video in the past have been removed for copyright violations, which can be checked via this article's history. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Than it is in fact not CC BY-SA 4.0 but it is instead in the public domain0C70 PR0 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the idea that videos (and screencaps from them) are in the public domain by default? Unless Nintendo specifically stated the video falls under free-use/Creative Commons (which you have yet to provide proof for, thus making your CC 4.0 license claim false), then the image is not allowed per WP:NFC. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On the source, it says it's ineligible for copyright, therfore it's in the punlic domain. 0C70 PR0 (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikias are not reliable sources, let alone authoritative sources on copyright. The image is a screenshot from copyrighted material from Nintendo and is not in the public domain. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Citations in lead
I have seen you reference MOS:CITELEAD several times as a justification for removing citations in the lead. I think you should read that section of the guideline again. Nowhere does it say that citations should be avoided in the lead. In fact, it says that any material in the lead that is likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation, just like in the rest of the article. You seem to prefer to simply copy and paste a challengable statement into the body of the article along with its source. This is a needless addition of repetition that can be avoided by simply adding the reference the first time, in the lead. Ostealthy (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that it doesn't say they should be avoided, but you removing the source from the article body is what I have issue with. The lead should not be the only place a claim is cited, it's only meant to summarize the rest of the article. Any featured article is going to generally omit citations from the lead, so it's usually good practice to have it formatted like such. But at the very least add a ref name for the lead, keeping the full citation in the body. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of a BLP, the subject's full legal name only needs to be mentioned once, in the first sentence of the article. And that needs to be sourced. It is entirely unnecessary to state the full name again later in the article, simply to avoid having a citation in the lead. Ostealthy (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you directly link me to the guideline? I still don't see most full legal names in leads being sourced, and they also get repeated later one (with a source). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 09:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the aforementioned is not in a guideline AFAIK, it's simply my opinion. Ostealthy (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , well then we use the standard you see in most other (well-written) biographical articles, which general follows WP:LEAD and has the full legal name used again in the first part of the article body. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussing about Trials of Mana → Seiken Densetsu 3 move
Hi Dissident, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could you weight in in this move discussion. I ask you because I think this is in a similar situation to the Mother article that you voted on a few years ago. Alt (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Atlus' divisions
Hi,

It has been known for quite a long time that Atlus has three divisions. - Creative Department 1st Production, originally R&D1, is dedicated to Shin Megami Tensei (developed by Team Maniax, a internal team of 1st Production), Etrian Odyssey, Devil Survivor, etc. - Creative Departement 2nd Production, also known as P-Studio. See here, this is the logo that appears on all Persona games: https://giantbomb1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/scale_medium/0/1992/2574004-screen%20shot%202013-11-24%20at%208.48.30%20am.png - Creative Department 3rd Production, also known as Studio Zero. Created in 2016 for the development of Project Re Fantasy, long after P-Studio, which is the 2nd Production. So of course there is a 1st Production! The only two games created by Studio Zero are Catherine:Full Body and Project Re Fantasy.

I don't have the time to look for the Japanese Famitsu articles that specifically say "1st, 2nd and 3rd Productions", but this has been known for years.

Right now, the Atlus page is wrong. Thanks,

EDIT: I found a good source. The diagram of the Atlus recruiting website has the three divisions highlighted: http://www.atlus.co.jp/recruit/about/company/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:803F:4D00:7137:D3C7:72D:172F (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

UFAs
Interesting thing I found: the NFL.com official transactions page says when unrestricted free agents' contracts expired yesterday, the players were placed on the "reserve, unrestricted free agent" list by teams.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is this not just a special response to the ongoing pandemic (for some reason)? Even if they are officially on the reserve lists, I don't think we should maintain that here on Wikipedia. I mean, would they even officially be dropped from it, even though they are no longer under contract\paid by the team as of today? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t believe it has anything to do with the pandemic stuff. Pretty sure it’s related to the seldom-used “May 5 tender” rule where if a UFA is still unsigned as of May 5, their old team may place a tender on them that gives them exclusive negotiating rights for the following 2.5 months. It might also be related to compensatory pick calculations. For the roster navboxes it doesn’t make much sense to have the UFAs but there’s no harm in keeping them on the main roster templates until May 5.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , are you sure you're not mistaking UFA for another type of free agent? Since when have they had extended negotiating periods once the league year ends? If a team places a tender on them then they should obviously remain, but keeping every UFA just in case that happens is silly. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Patriots used the May 5 tender (it was called the May 9 tender at the time) on unsigned UFA LeGarrette Blount in 2017 (article). This gave the Patriots exclusive negotiation rights in the event he was still unsigned by the beginning of training camp in July. He ended up signing with the Eagles a week later so the tender didn’t amount to anything. The tenders cannot be placed until May 5, so we won’t know if anyone receives one until then. Again, I don’t see the harm in keeping UFAs on the main templates when it’s factual, accurate, and verifiable, and personally I find it interesting to view the current lists of unsigned UFAs for each team.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see. But to add, they shouldn't be included in navboxes per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, assuming their page notes they are a free agent. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the navboxes.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  13:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yo
Not sure if you've seen this yet... but read this YouTube video's description. (It's official, btw. Insert Knuckles "oh no" here.) <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  16:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm aware. Really makes you wonder if there are other obscure songs that they used as a base for the game... ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Caleb Brantley
You reverted this edit of mine. I don't believe having an entire section devoted to criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed is appropriate. It belongs in the article since it (likely) directly impacted his draft position, and I think integrating it in the "Professional career" section makes more sense. (As an aside, I added the NFL.com transactions page as a reference just for short-term use in case a better reference couldn't be found. As he has been re-signed, I agree there's no longer a reason to include it.)  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree that the entire thing could be placed in the pre-draft section; I just didn't see a point in repeating the same info twice. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've put my changes to that subject back in.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Peyton Barber
Greg Auman, a reporter for the Atletic reported earlier today that Barber signed a 2 year deal with the Redskins https://twitter.com/gregauman/status/1242528470913167361 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneBucPerson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We wait until the team officially announces it though. See WP:SPORTSTRANS ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 09:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Hello! I am a university student who is currently trying to write/edit Teamfight Tactics article on Wikipedia, and I have a few questions with regards to references that can be used for a gaming article. I don't know how to use Wikipedia well, so I would love to receive an email (dukekang980321@gmail.com) from you or can write on my page as well. Thank you very much for your work.

Donguk Kang (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Sorry about that!
Hey, sorry for keeping you hanging with the Dota article. You've done a great job with warding off vandals and uninformed editors-- Lonyo in particular would appear to be an extremely inactive editor who's only made a handful of edits over the past two decades. I'll begin with heavy construction of the article within the next couple of days. I guess I needed to take care of a thing or two, by getting work stuff settled and editing articles that were inspiring more at the time, such as Alien (franchise) and Return to Dark Tower. But, now I'm focused.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 17:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although I've been lacking on expanding the page myself as I've gotten busy with other projects. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Elden ring page
Thanks for removing the release date info, I would have removed it if I knew how to. Dec 31st is a placeholder date and "June release" is 100% wrong. People believe google translate is accurate. Canz 911 (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , for future reference, you can simply copy the entire article (found via the edit history), and then paste that over the current article. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

SEGA Forever
Hi there. I keep trying to edit the SEGA Forever page but it keeps being reverted. I work for SEGA specifically on SEGA Forever and I'm trying to correct the article. Could you please stop reverting it, or help me correct it? Feel free to contact me via danny@sega.co.uk.
 * That represents an obvious conflict of interest (see WP:COI), meaning you should request the edits via the talk page instead of making them yourself. But what exactly are you trying to change with the article? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Trevor Lawrence Page Move
Hi, you moved pages over based on a technical page request. However, I raised a concern on the request page, which you didn't answer. Secondly, the technical request page is for those move requests that can't be fulfilled by a simple move and require additional user rights, such as admin or page move rights. Right now the pages are all messed up because you don't have permission to delete redirects or do page swaps. In the future please discuss these page moves on the RM page, especially if a concern has been made. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved this discussion from my talk page.
 * some misunderstanding's occured between us. you moved pages—aye, I did, but none related to the Lawrence request. I simply changed the redirect targets of Trevor Lawrence and Talk:Trevor Lawrence. You've undone those, so I'm not sure what you mean by now the pages are all messed up? If they still are after you've undone the only edits of mine relevant to this situation, the problem lies elsewhere, I'm afraid.
 * I'm sorry for the confusion I caused with those two edits. I'll be sure to be much more careful in my edit summaries, which I assume led you to my talk page. In an effort to help clear up this situation, I've moved the discussion to Dissedent93's talk. Since they originally moved the pages before requesting technical help, they may be in a better position to address your concerns. Thank you, and stay well. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks to both. In any event, I also posted at the technical request that this might need a RM discussion since there is a dispute as to which person is primary and even if we have a primary. So my suggestion would be to open an RM discussion if you want a primary topic since right now one of them might be more primary than the others. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , responded on his talk page. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , what's the point of this? Discuss the issue over at Soule's talk page instead of sending some veiled threat. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate these notices, to be honest, but they're part of an administrative process (Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions). The arbitration committee went to a good deal of effort to make a notice that would not read like a threat, but there's just no way you can follow the approved alert process without coming across like "do things my way or I'll block you!" And it's also kind of nonsense that anyone might believe that someone with nearly 100,000 edits wouldn't know at least that the BLP policy exists. But the people who check these things get all kinds of uppity if we don't use these exact templated notices in exactly the prescribed way. If I came here and said "hey, you know there's discretionary sanctions on BLP's, right?" then someone else would be upset. And if I did do something like block you under the discretionary sanctions without making sure that you had received this exact notice within the last 365 days then I'd be in all kinds of trouble. Anyway, I'm definitely not about to block you, especially over a content discussion I'm involved in; sorry for the drama. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I sounded hostile in return, I've just never seen this template used or mentioned before. I didn't take offense to it, but I also think that going through administrative protocol when I didn't violate any guideline (I stopped short of breaking WP:3RR, didn't I?) could be seen as hostile to others. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

International players
Ya know, it's easier to just post on my talk page than look like we're edit warring with each other. NFL.com transactions for April 2020 says Durval Queiroz, Jakob Johnson, and Christian Wade were all placed on "exempt/international player" on April 27. Those three players, along with the four allocated to NFC East teams this year, are all active roster exemptions and those teams can carry 91 players on their offseason rosters. When the 53-man cutdown day comes, these teams will have the option to either cut them and place them on the practice squad through the international exemption (in which case they are ineligible to be promoted to the active roster during the regular season), cut them and place them on the practice squad without the exemption (which happened to Jakob Johnson last year and he was promoted to the active roster for a game), or add them to the 53-man roster as a full-time member. International Player Pathway has the full terms of how it works.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Restored Source 2 page
Hey, can you tell me why did someone bring back the page on Source 2? There's zero to little information about the engine officially releasing. All we know that it is just an in-house game development engine, that Valve is currently using. Not to mention that Valve is tight-lipped about all future projects that they release up to this point. So why try to bring it back with no official release or announcement. Picaxe01talk 17:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , because it has more coverage now than it used to, when all we had was Dota 2 using it. It not being publicly available doesn't matter. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing said about Source 2 that cannot be covered at the main Source article. Unity, Frostbite and Unreal don't have separate articles for each release. -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , are those not simply revisions of the same engine? Source 2 is marketed as the successor to Source and not as an update to it (at least by Valve and the media). While I don't oppose a merge back (again), it should be due to other reasons and not this. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:RANGE
The key to this guideline is the portion that says "Do not mix en dashes with between or from." You can put a date range in parentheses and use the en dash, but in prose if you say "from 19xx to 19xx, this happened" you don't use the en dash and just use "to". If you have a question about a guideline or policy cited in an edit summary, please use the talk page instead of the undo button.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there's no hard policy AFAIK against using a revert to discuss a change, only when it becomes disruptive and leads to an edit war. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:REVTALK has guidance in the second paragraph there. Specifically, Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. As you are now aware of the MOS for year ranges in prose, please revert your edit at Sean Davis (American football) so I don't have to.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the key phrase listed there is "to carry on", which I (apparently incorrectly) assumed was only if discussion is continued by way of reverting, and not as a one-time event (WP:BRD). In any case the issue has been resolved, so that's really all that should matter. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Content deleted on one BLP, same stuff restored on another BLP?
Hi there,

Re your May edit here restoring content to the Jeremy Soule page, in late April similar content was removed  here from the Nathalie Lawhead BLP.

I only just noticed this today. If removed from the accusers' BLP (Lawhead) should it be removed from the accuseds' BLP (Soule) too? Seems the issue is rather contentious, from the IPs contributions here Regards, 220  of  Borg 10:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't aware she had her own article, but yes the content should be restored; maybe edited some to remove some WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

About the page "List of games represented in the Super Smash Bros. series"
Hey! How are you? hope you're doing well.

I saw that you redirected the page to the characters list and i just want to respectfully disagree with your reasoning as it covered way more than the characters. It delved into stages, songs choices, items, and other tidbits that the characters list barely covers. So i have decided to undo your action. I hope this didnt brew any ill will, just a respectful disagreement. Though I would still like help/input in terms of wording and such.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insertinternethere (talk • contribs) 04:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The page is massive and mostly consists of WP:GAMECRUFT that wouldn't even belong on their respective articles. As such, I'll properly nominate it at AfD to garner more opinions. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Clubhouse Games: 51 Clubhouse Games Games List
Hey, I want to thank you for clearing up the page I made and I hope you can help it's quality rise. However, there is a subject I'd like to talk about regarding the games list. While I disagree in broad terms why the game list can't be on the article, I can respect the decision for the removal of it due to WP:GAMECRUFT. However, since other people keep posting it, is there anyway to prevent others from adding it back? Also, should I do the same on the first game's list, Clubhouse Games? Thanks! Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , having it sourced and written as generalized prose is preferable to an uncited bulleted list. I don't think anybody would object to that. The first game's page should not be an exception to this either. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Rocket League Cross-Platform Play
Hello. I'm new to all of this so I apologize ahead of time if I mess something up along the lines. I was curious to know why my edit to the rocket league article was deleted. I'm doing a class project on contributing to wikipedia and was wondering if you could point out the reason for deleteing my edit. Maybe you could explain by using some of the guidelines for posting? Like for example, my entry was deleted because it was too specific, or it was biased, or etc. Thank you.CapricornSOx (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , like I said in the edit summary, I just feel like it was a bit too much. I'm sure there are other cross-platform games that have similar chat functions due to framework incompatibility or platform guidelines, right? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN
Hi. Just wondering whether you have actually read WP:NOTBROKEN. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In a vacuum seeing a few of these on their watchlist, neither user would have been wrong to revert you... You replaced links to a redirect calling is a disambiguation page, which it is not (currently). I've dug deep enough now to find the move discussion that's in progress but has not completed yet. Clearer explanation of your mass edits might have helped avoid any reverts, so users understood this discussion was underway and why the redirects were being replaced. Dissident, Stef, see Talk:Action-adventure (disambiguation). This is prep work for a move (though it hasn't closed yet). -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't aware of any page move requests, but you moving articles before it was even settled should have been avoided anyway. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 06:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't move any articles. And the links that you changed by your reverts were themselves WP:NOTBROKEN redirects. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , did you not move the redirects to "Action-adventure game|Action-adventure" before the move discussion had been settled? Prematurely doing that is what caused this discussion in the first place. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I can see in the sequence of events, someone moved the redirect, R'n'B began clean up, and then a third editor reverted the redirect change and started a proper move discussion. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Ferret says is correct. First of all, what I did was edit links, not "move redirects". Please tell me you understand that those are two different things; otherwise, there is not much point in having a conversation about it. Second, when I edited the links, they were pointing to a redirect to a disambiguation page, and therefore appeared on maintenance lists as links needing fixing.  After the third user redirected Action-adventure to point to the gaming article instead, the remaining links to that title no longer needed fixing. However, the ones that I previously had edited were still WP:NOTBROKEN. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Meaning of per nom
Hi, can you describe meaning of "per nom"? because i don’t know Baran Ahmet (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , "nom" in this context means the nomination/nominator's reasoning for keeping/deleting/merging an article. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion FAC
I made some adjustments to the article so that paragraphs were at least made up of three complete sentences. Let me know if you think it still needs big improvements.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 13:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Demon's Souls Remake
There are very short articles that exist for Gran Turismo 7 and Spider-Man: Miles Morales. I don't think it is necessary to keep Demon's Souls Remake as just a redirect right now. An article can be made and filled with as much information as we have right now. --Osh33m (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we literally know nothing else about the remake besides the developer, platform, and general art style. We're only supposed to make articles like this once they no longer fit snugly as a section on the original game's article, otherwise you can use that logic to make any article with the premise being "it can be expanded upon later". As for your listed examples, the GT example should be merged into the series article for the same reasoning, while Spiderman can remain as a start class article as it has enough. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but why does other stuff exist? That logic sounds just a lot like this encyclopedia picks and chooses when an article is appropriate and when it isn't. Instead of making the article look like "it can be expanded upon later," it can be made to resemble the GT7 and Miles Morales articles. If you disagree, then are you going to revert the GT7 into a redirect link as well? And if not, why are you picking and choosing which articles to do that to? --Osh33m (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , well if you don't agree with my opinion then you could ask WT:VG who would most likely tell you the same thing. If you could make it around the size of Miles Morales article then sure, but I'm not sure how you are going to do that as there is basically no other info on it besides the fact it exists with a few screenshots. Even the current section on the original game's article is but a single sentence long that summarizes everything we currently know about it; just adding an infobox that repeats the same exact info doesn't make an article any bigger, just more bloated. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is definitely enough information out there for at least a development section of the independent article. So...I wanna go ahead and turn it back into its own article and its own section in the Souls series article instead of it being a subsection of the original.--Osh33m (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , as of now, yes. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Final Sword
I wanted to talk about the inclusion of Final Sword, but it was removed due to unlicensed use of The Legend of Zelda series music, which they have not issued a further release date, if Nintendo approves the game back, who knows. I think it's best to leave it off the list till Nintendo themselves announces that it's back in the eShop. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games_(A%E2%80%93L)&diff=prev&oldid=966647572 Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
 * I see. However, it still existed on the shop prior to that and we don't remove other inactive/unsupported games either, so maybe it could stay with a note or something?

Call of Duty: Mobile
Hi, I hope that my edits on CoDM article doesn't look somewhat irrelevant, but why you removed those cites I inserted that support the description of "grossing over US$327 million with 250 million downloads by June 2020"?

Other article on wikipedia have cites to support the amount of grossing profit or otherwise it would be considered somewhat fake.

And I added Tencent to the publisher list because they didn't publish CoDM in China only but also South Korea. Even League of Legends article on Wikipedia that despite Tencent also a publisher for the game but only published at China, the company was listed. Axeth (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , because it was already cited below; WP:CITELEAD. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Nakano
Hey, was wondering what kind of clean up you were doing on that article, was that stuff not relevant? Or poorly sourced? Or both? Just want to get some insight! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , for the table? I got rid of the unnecessary "composition" column and changed the wikicode itself to be more consistent with other articles. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice: added to scope of NFL template proposal
See here. Just letting you know I've found and added a couple more templates that will be affected. --DB1729 (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Categories
I see how you and others have created new categories for Washington FT. Looks like we still need a new one for Category:Washington Redskins seasons so we can place the 2020 season into Category:Washington Football Team seasons. Is that the idea, or move that category? --DB1729 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that category should be moved (it includes their Boston days too as you can see) but is move-protected and needs an admin to do it. I'll notify one. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. It should be moved. Not sure what I was thinking. --DB1729 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

RedskinsFirstPick
Regarding. Except the page is named "Template:RedskinsFirstPick", so it will have to be moved before any future draft picks, assuming there is a permanent name selected before the next draft. In other words, it is likely there will never be a player drafted under the "Football Team" name. --DB1729 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the template can easily be moved with no issue though. And you can't say for certain whether they will have their permanent name revealed before the 2021 draft, specifically as Rivera and other team executives have stated it will probably be an 12-18 month process like other team rebrandings. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wow, didn't know it took so long. Anyway, I'm still not clear why you want the page name to be "RedskinsFirstPick", but yet insist on "Washington Redskins / Football Team first-round draft picks" (my emphasis of course) as the title. That puts the page in contradiction with itself imo. --DB1729 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , where did I say that? I was only saying that any future Washington draft picks should go there too as there is no need to separate them. I've gone ahead and made the changes. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In your edit summary here when you said "...but this template won't be moved...". I had assumed you meant it will not be moved at all, and stay at Template:RedskinsFirstPick. I misunderstood. Thanks for taking care of the move. --DB1729 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Related question. Should then Category:Washington Redskins draft navigational boxes be moved under the same rationale as the move above? By the way, sorry to keep bothering you, but I'm still rather new at this game. Wish I could be of more help and less a burden. While you and others were busy cranking out all those fixes, I was busy trying to figure out how to correctly deal with all the template and category moves and changes without screwing something up. Probably over-thinking in some cases. You have been incredibly patient, and a pleasure to work with. Thank you. --DB1729 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it should, since that encompasses the entire history of the franchise and all future drafts and not just ones held as the Redskins. And no worries, no experienced Wiki editor started out knowing all the guidelines, policies, and practices. Making mistakes is a part of the process and they are usually fixed with haste by other editors who watch the page, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 02:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Emanuel Hall
wtf, stop reverting me and talk to me please. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  23:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They did not add Harmon to the same list today. They placed Harmon on the active/non-football injury list, whereas Hall is on the reserve/non-football injury list. Howard Balzer and NFL Trade Rumors each independently have access to the transactions wire and they say the same thing. Isn't it more likely that the team who was forced to change their offensive name got it wrong rather than three independent journalists? <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  23:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , nether the league nor team have officially announced this move (yet) so I don't even see what really needs to be discussed. NFL insiders can be wrong (AB to Bills), so let's just wait for an official/public announcement first (and aren't you usually the one telling other people the same thing?) There really is no need to be hasty here. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AB to the Bills was not reported on the NFL transactions wire, this one was. And the new transactions page redesign has not shown one single reserve list transaction since it launched a few months ago. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  23:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , while true, the team also hasn't announced it either even though they just put out a press release regarding a few other moves. I'll give it a few days for the move to be made public, but if it still hasn't by then you can't really fault me for reverting him back to being a free agent, can you? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When a player gets waived with some injury designation and clears waivers, there is no extra time period in which the team decides whether to move him to a reserve list. It happens as soon as the player clears waivers at 4PM. When a player is waived/injured and clears waivers the next day, they are immediately placed on injured reserve. This is different from waiting for the "official" signings/releases/placement on a list because those are able to happen (typically) at any time. This is the list of reserve list transactions for the month of July according to NFL.com (it is blank). We know that 24 players have been placed on the reserve/COVID-19 list in the last two days, but they do not appear here. Some teams have announced those moves, some have not. We had a very similar discussion at User talk:Eagles247/Archive 42 in which the transactions wire was more reliable than the Washington website, which corrected itself like two weeks later. For whatever reason, it seems like the Washington website believes that once a player is released in some manner from the team, there is no way they could revert back to a reserve list, as we saw from the Dunn example and this one today. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CBS has the Hall transaction today, too, and the rest of the transactions they have on there seem pretty accurate. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  00:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , all fair points. I'll revert back. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy. (And sorry for getting a bit hot-headed at the start of this thread.) <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  00:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries, I can give off a hostile vibe at times even though I'm not trying to be. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 01:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Alex Smith edit summary
In response to this edit summary, yes, the reserve/PUP list exists during training camp (at the moment, Josh Bellamy, Kyron Brown, Quincy Enunwa, Nick Nelson, and Daeshon Hall are the only players on that list across the NFL) so I think it could be confusing to readers who know about the season-ending PUP list but who are maybe unaware about how the active training camp one works. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  14:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , true, but I think that after training camp/preseason we should just simplify it since it would be assumed to be season-ending by that point anyway. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, that works. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Jordan Reed
I don't think a GM or HC talking about a player being signed before it's official is that reliable. See the Texans openly talking about Tim Jernigan signing even though it never happened and he's still a free agent. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  12:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , CBS Sports transactions (which you used for Emmanuel Hall before the team reported it) says he was signed, so it should be fine now right? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll have to take back what I said about CBS Sports (the rest of my argument for the Hall transaction stands), it looks like they use other sources in addition to the official wire. FWIW, NFL.com's new transactions page appears accurate for signings at least, despite not having transactions for active injury lists, COVID, or opt-outs listed. I'll leave it for now, but I'll update Reed's page when the signing officially goes through later. It's so frustrating that the NFL has an official transactions wire available only for the media that fans can't access, they have to wait for members of the media to report on it, and then they fail to update their fan-friendly transactions page accurately. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  19:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yesterday John Lynch said D. J. Reed was being placed on the reserve/non-football injury list. Today, Reed was waived and, assuming he passes through waivers tomorrow at 4PM,, will revert to the team's reserve/non-football injury list. He couldn't go directly from the active/NF-Inj list to the reserve/NF-Inj list because he needs to clear waivers first. Jordan Reed could still fail his physical before signing with the team later this week and the signing will have never happened despite John Lynch's words. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  22:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Professional Dota competition concern
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Professional Dota competition, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Washington Football Team infobox
I think those team infoboxes have been hijacked a bit. The parameter is just for the "city" but someone added all of the field names too. (You don't "play in" a field, you play in a city.) Same with the "headquarters" in the Philadelphia Eagles infobox, it should just be the city, not the name of the complex as well. The field name is already listed at the very bottom of the infobox, so having them in the top portion is redundant. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe not. Found a diff from 11 years ago by legendary ex-editor adding it here so I guess it was intentional. Still reads weird. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b>  (C)  19:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense, I can go and fix that instead unless you plan to? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were already going to fix them per your edit summary, go ahead. I'm about to log off for the day. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , alright, I'll get around to them later. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Roster counts
For this, when the roster count is higher than the limit, it's more than likely because someone didn't update the count correctly. In this case, Ngaukoue has a roster exemption following the trade, so the count should be +1 for exempt instead of +1 for active. Changing the active count to 80 doesn't solve the problem. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  15:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, Paulo was a claimed player and has a roster exemption but the active count was erroneously given +1 instead of the exempt count. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  15:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm aware, but it shouldn't be 80 regardless. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have the wrong breakdown of the counts than an erroneous combined total count. It's easy to see there's an error with the first one, difficult with the other. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  19:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Professional Dota competition


Hello, Dissident93. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Professional Dota competition".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 01:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's fine, I meant to do more with it years ago but the series page for Dota would serve a better use for it now. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 02:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ignore the notice of an undo
Sorry. I accidentally reverted you on Cathedral High School (Indianapolis) Meters (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Dendi (gamer)
He was a small child when the Socialist republic collapsed. He didnt do anything notable while it existed. Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if that's the qualification for inclusion then that's fine. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 22:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to decide what to do in this part of the world, but the general idea is that we dont just categorise people by where they are born. Rathfelder (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , even if they were born naturalized citizens? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 05:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont think you can be born naturalised. Naturalisation is what happens when you migrate and become a citizen of the new country.  The article doesnt actually say anything about his early life. The other people in Category:Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic people seem to be people who did something which related specifically to the state. Rathfelder (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

NFL.com player page links
Hi, I see you made some changes such that the the NFL.com link at Adrian Arrington now works, but it still goes to a generic NFL.com page. I think this could be fixed by removing the /profile part of the URL in the template. But I am still curious why it doesn't work without adding the tag in the template, since it should be able to pull that from Wikidata. Any insight would be appreciated.

–CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 14:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I couldn't see where the "profile" part was coming from and I had to run and do something else. I'll take another look.


 * I fixed the template to remove the "profile" part and now the link works. But I'm still stumped as to why it's not pulling the tag from Wikidata. If it did I think some of the issues at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NFL.com_player_template_missing_ID_and_not_in_Wikidata would be fixed.
 * –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, just figured it out! I had to change the tag in Wikidata from "deprecated rank" to "normal rank". I just learned about Wikidata a few days ago so I don't really understand what this means. But glad to have figured it out.
 * –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 02:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that was automatically done after the formatting changed, but glad to see everything works as intended now. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

General link vs. Year link
I apologize. Just noticed some of your edit summaries because I do not watch pages anymore. I try to stick to existing formats when doing similar types of edits consistently. I see the year links are much more numerous in recent players compared to players from the past. I personally think that the year link is the one that should be adhered to when doing bigger name players because they will have more notable performances against teams more often than once. Like a player will have a great performance against the Colts in 2011 and 2020. The 2020 version of the team is completely different than the 2011 version so that will allow some readers access to those specific pages that they would not know exists otherwise. I welcome any suggestions you have. Red Director (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I see your point and maybe I'm just wrong about all of this, but can't that same logic can be used when discussing the team who drafted them and which teams they later signed with? It's only ever used AFAIK when discussing a team they played against. Unless I'm unaware of any consensus discussion for this, I just feel like this is something some single editor started a few years ago and now it's considered a hard guideline, even though it arguably violates WP:EASTEREGG. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see how that can perceived using EASTEREGG guidelines. Like a newcomer will click on one of those and be redirected to a page about a certain year when only interested in the team as a whole. I have noticed those year links have been on here for a couple of years. You have newer editors come along and see what is being done on recent players and that is being taken as the token way to do things. I can both having their advantages and disadvantages. I do see some bigger articles have a "see also" below headers showing their current teams with the year page linked and some have the years in a statistical table. It is almost impossible to have consistency across the board without a strict uniform template that can be enforced. That is what makes the Wiki what it is though: a hodgepodge of different ideas. Let me know what I can do to modify how my edits go to make it easier on you all so you can deal with what needs fixing elsewhere. Red Director (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like your thoughts on how to approach this for the future. The amount of links that currently go to a team's year page instead of the general is pretty high. It would be a large undertaking to try and find them all to a general format that only links once. Information from the 2020 season will need to continue to be added as games happen. From a MOS standpoint, if you link separate years, it provides readers with a wider array of content to read about teams. I think the earliest example I saw of this was on some NBA player articles a while back. A lot of those year pages immediately link to the general page if that is what the reader so desires to view. I am personally okay with having both types of link being acceptable depending on the opinion of the editor. The reason I am asking you is that you clearly have a good grasp on how some formats need to look. I just don't want to add a lot of content to have it immediately be modified. Red Director (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're right in that this would be a mess to enforce over 1000s of links. I just think that the more simple a link is, the better. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Let's just take it by ear then. If you feel like a page that has the year instead of the general needs to be reversed, I trust your judgment. Some editors will do what they feel is best. If I see a page is loaded with the year links, I will add those to match and be consistent. However, if only general links are there, I will try to stick to that to make things a little more consistent in that regard. Red Director (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's probably best, yeah. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chase Young
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chase Young you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bait30 -- Bait30 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , awesome. Hopefully I've prepped the article enough so that it won't require much fixing, but another set of eyes will spot anything I've missed. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 08:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chase Young
The article Chase Young you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chase Young for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bait30 -- Bait30 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chase Young
The article Chase Young you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chase Young for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bait30 -- Bait30 (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

maybe you can suggest a change vs just undoing my changes?
I think we both agree the section heading on the redskins having "early" isn't good. Someone decided to make a new section with the name change that is under Snyder. Maybe the name shouldn't be the start of a new section? I understand why you undid my changes, but since you obviously care as i do, can you suggest a fix? Maybe the new name shouldn't be a new section of its own is the solution, but I don't want to keep making an attempt to fix an obvious problem and just have it undone. how about a brainstorm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailedtheSeas (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC) I went ahead and made a change to standardize the subsection to how the rest of the section is. I'm not sure who "decided" that a new era should be created but since the rest of the section is based on eras of people i don't believe the creation of a new era solely for the name change when that is addressed in other sections makes any sense. I'm looking at the history to see if I can figure out who and when someone made that change but unless we're going to change how the eralier era's are based solely on names then a new one shouldnt be cratead.SailedtheSeas (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is a nearly 90 year old name changing not a new era? Especially when it came with a plethora of coaching and front office changes? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First thank you for working with me!!!! I used to be active on wiki but quit because people were so inflexible. Have much more free time now so came back. I'm not going to undo your change but someone might because it's negative. Unfort I have so much more free time and i didn't wait for a reply from you whereas if i had less time i would have waited. Enough on that. I think it's too early to call the name change an era and in particular because they've not chosen a new name. Once a new name is actually decided on, in my mind maybe it might qualify as an era but right now with it being WFT it's really a placeholder. Maybe I'm wrong and there are other pages that probably have had similar events and I'll see if i can find them and how they handled it.
 * The problem I see with this latest change is exactly the reason you gave where it makes it appear as if Snyder is no longer involved. My problem with "early" is that it covers 20 years and then there's a new "era" that is really just 4 months long. I can ramble so I'll cut off roughly here to see if what i'm trying to say seems to make sense. BTW I put the item on the talk page so I won't clutter your talk page with this discussion and maybe we can get some discussion and someone can be smarter than us and be a better wordsmith. Again thanks.SailedtheSeas (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's less about the "Football Team" name being the start of a new era but rather the end of the "Redskins", a name that the team used for nearly 90 years. It's not like we will have an entire new section when the permanent name is announced in the next year or so. More than likely the new section will just be named "Redskins name change" / "Rebranding" or something like that. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Years in parentheses
Hey, you might be interested in this: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. Popcornfud (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Revisiting the Sonic the Hedgehog and Sakura Wars GT/FT proposals== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Revisiting the Sonic the Hedgehog and Sakura Wars GT/FT proposals. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: List of second overall National Football League draft picks
Hello Dissident93. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of List of second overall National Football League draft picks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''article is not about a person. Lists of people are not eligible for A7, especially not lists of notable people.''' Thank you. So Why  08:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bruce Allen, etc
Dissident93, thanks for your many improvements to the Bruce Allen (American football) article. I do, however, have an problem with your removal of the head coaching record table that I added; see this diff. These tables are standard for inclusion even in cases where a coach's tenure lasted a single year; there are hundreds of such examples including Bill Parcells and Lou Holtz. Prose is not a substitute for such tables, much like prose is not a substitute for elements of an infobox. Ideally, the prose of an article with reiterate all the data points in an infobox and any salient data points in tables like head coaching record tables. Aside from whatever the prose of an article may state, head coaching record tables are particularly useful because they provide the reader with a standardized form and location to access career records and provide a standardized and non-awkward way of linking to articles related to a coach's record. In the case of Bruce Allen, these links would include 1979 NCAA Division III football season, Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, Occidental Tigers football, and potentially 1979 Occidental Tigers football team or 1979 Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, should those articles be created. Also, these table will show conference records and finishes, which, of course, could be detailed in prose, if need be.

Second, I revered your edit at Template:Occidental Tigers football coach navbox to restore a standard that applies to well over a thousand such college sports coach and athletic director navboxes. I recall that we had a discussion some some ago about the use of "present" in the NFL coach navboxes. I'd be happy to have a discussion somewhere to form a unified consensus about formatting that would apply to all such navboxes found in the subcategories of Category:Sportsperson navigational boxes. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm honestly indifferent on the season table (just as long as it's simple and not over-designed with colors and key codes and other unnecessary stuff people like to use in them), but adding "present" to incumbent tenures should always be done per MOS:DATETOPRES. There is no valid reason why sports articles should be exempt from it. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I restored the head coaching record table on the Bruce Allen article. The color schemes for these tables are standardized with the templates that build them. They get more colorful in cases where championships were won, e.g. Nick Saban. I'll open up a discussion elsewhere about the navoxes and "present". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dissident93, please leave the standard formatting of the head coaching record table intact. Also, we know that Allen was born in 1956. July 26, 1979 article states he is 22. November 10, 1979 article says he is 23. His 23rd birthday must have occurred in the interim. Hence he was born in 1956. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per your last edit on Bruce Allen, no, this is the standard even for coaches with single year tenures. Please see the aforementioned Bill Parcells and Lou Holtz for examples. There are scores of others. Also, have you seen what your edit did to the layout of the bottom of the article? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was missing an ending tag, which I fixed. But if this is standard to list the same record three times (common sense would say to avoid that), then so be it. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V
Could you first start discussion at infobox instead doing this? Would you like to do the same at Featured lists? Eurohunter (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I failed to see the purpose of such a thing when we already had a list containing the same info right below. Is this a common thing in film accolade lists at least? ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this infobox is common among films, music and games. Eurohunter (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , either it's commonplace for other media or it's not. If it is, then it could probably go back despite being redundant because I don't really care enough to debate it. But if not, then it should stay removed. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Chase Young Wikipedia Page: Statistics
Good morning Dissident93,

I noticed this morning that you made changes to the edits I have made to the Chase Young Wikipedia, most notably his statistics. I agree with your change to move his tackles to 33, as that is what it says on NFL.com. I retrieved my number originally from ESPN, however I understand moving forward with using NFL.com as the primary reference. Furthermore, I also understand your choice to leave it as "Touchdowns" and not "Defensive touchdowns". However, I disagree with your choice to remove the Wikipedia page reference of Fumble recoveries (Fumbles) and Pass deflections (Pass deflected). I am basing these references on other defensive players' Wikipedias, and I find it important to leave this reference to remain as any individual who does not understand the sport can use the link to easily be referenced to the Wikipedia page of the said word. I hope you understand and we can come to an agreement on this.

Justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTTRJustin (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I only delinked fumble recoveries since it just redirects to the same article that forced fumbles also goes too (which is linked right above it). That being said I wasn't aware that a "pass deflection" article existed, so I linked that. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 21:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Have a Happy Holidays!
<div style="; float: left; margin-top: 3px; background-color: #CD0412; border: 1px solid #0F6E02; padding: 10px; width: 425px; clear: both;"> <div style="; border-style:solid; border-color:#0C8703; background-color:#CD0412; border-width:5px; text-align:left; padding:18px;" class="plainlinks" valign="top" width: 300px;> Captain Galaxy   is   wishing   you   a   Merry   Christmas  ( quite possibly a   White   Christmas ).'''

<span style="color: white; margin-bottom: 0.3em; font-size: 116%; border-bottom: medium none; font-weight: bold; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0.17em;">Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year ''' This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the Christmas spirit  by adding    to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links  in this message!

— 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Standard elevations
Re: Standard elevations from the practice squad mean the players are temporarily moved to the active rosters. They are official members of the active roster for the one or two days they are elevated, and therefore their roster status becomes "Active" until they automatically revert to practice squads the day after games. It's tedious to go and change these in infoboxes for up to 64+ players twice each week, so Jrooster49 and most of the "regular" NFL editors don't seem to bother. These players are also no longer eligible to receive an asterisk in our infoboxes for that tenure with a team either (since they were not "only" on the practice squad for their tenure with the team, as the footnote says). In Montez's case, he was on the active roster from December 19 at 4p.m. through December 21 at 4p.m. It's the same thing as if he were signed to the active roster on December 19, then waived on December 21, except of course with standard elevations he did not have to pass through waivers. I don't understand this edit either, as Leake was not only elevated to the active roster for the game, but he played in the game and made his NFL debut. If you're referring to the lack of mention of his reversion to the practice squad, then I agree it's misleading, as it reads like he was promoted to the active roster full-time. <b style="color:#004C54">Eagles</b> <b style="color:#004C54">24/7</b> (C)  03:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border:3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color:#FFFAE0; padding:0.1em 0.2em; height:auto; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Dissident93 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Le Panini  [🥪] 23:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


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

Happy New Year!
<div style="border:3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color:#FFFAE0; padding:0.1em 0.2em; height:auto; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Dissident93 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Captain  Galaxy  00:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


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