User talk:Ferret/Archive 15

Are you the person who is changing my edits?
What about them are disruptive? I am fixing a typo. You are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6a00:23f7:294e:d7a8:e6bc:f88 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Why are my edits disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6a00:23f7:294e:d7a8:e6bc:f88 (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits are disruptive because you keep repeating them, even though I reverted it because its not a typo. The name of the band is Disonaur. Repeatedly changing it to Dinosaur despite being reverted and told why is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Helpful
Thanks for telling me when something I do might not exactly be all that great of an idea. It's rather helpful so I don't repeat a similar stupid mistake in the future. (I would give you a wikilove but I"m kinda being lazy rn) Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Video games Newsletter survey
I'm conducting another survey for the Wikiproject Video games Newsletter. If you could leave your thoughts on the matter it would be greatly appreciated. Every response will be compiled into a MOS-Esque answer that balances the thoughts of our top contributors. You're one of them! The question is as follows:

'''What would you consider the requirements of making a video game series article? What about franchise articles?'''

If you would like to respond, please ping me here and write your reply. I'll handle the rest. Thanks in advance, Panini! 🥪 14:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

request
I'm inclined to unblock here, but I never want to step on anyone's toes, especially if they have information I don't. Do you have any objections if I unblock? Do you have any input I should be aware of? — Ched (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, this is an old one, but one I remember fairly clearly due to the amount of cleanup it required as well as the block evasion via IP, at least 2-3. I don't think there was any account socking. There was however some cross-wiki involved, using Commons to ping me and continue discussion about their blocks. I'm not sure I have much of an opinion to offer that you would not be able to form yourself from the history, it's all on his user talk page the numerous attempts to warn and advise. This (cars) is not my topic area generally, so I would not normally be monitoring or patrolling. They had started to edit some racing video games and caught my eye because they were upset about their article being draftified. Feel free to use your judgement. -- ferret (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ferret. I'm doing some background stuff - but haven't been to commons yet.  I'm not sure English is their first language, and that coupled with the ENGVAR issues makes for a difficult call in some ways.  I think I may sleep on it, then look again tomorrow.  I'll let you know either way within 24 hours though.  Thank you for your feedback, it really helps. — Ched (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC) and yea, ferrets really are cute pets.  A buddy of mine had a few

Block request
Hi Ferret. I saw you're willing to do self-requested blocks, so do you mind blocking my alternate account for a while? I need to test a few things with how RedWarn handles blocked users. ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 18:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ For 1 week. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ✨ Ed  talk!  ✨ 19:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

League of Legends
Nope it wasn't asked of me on wiki, but a few people from discord have asked, anyway.. isn't league of legends apart of the series league of legends? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeePedia (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already responded to your talk page request. Why are you using multiple accounts? -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

the video game League of Legends is apart of the series league of legends, why would you revert that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 00:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * .....I've already responded to your talk page request. Why are you using multiple accounts? -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

yes, all you said was its been declined, but with no logic or answer why. the game is apart of the series, its a fact? its even on wikidata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mmm, no, I explained exactly why on the talk page:

At this time, there is no article on English Wikipedia for the League of Legends series/franchise. That may change in the not so distant future, but for right now there is nothing we can link to.
 * Why are you using multiple accounts? This is becoming a tad disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

why does there have to be a link? i mean on warriors orochi series, there is no link but it is still there — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You clearly know how to use the talk page, and should make your arguments there. Why are you using multiple accounts? -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

sorry i dont mean to argue, i was just confused why league of legends series is not in the infobox, when plenty of other video game series have no articles but are still mentioned, i mean there doesnt always need to be a link to a series, until there is one.. but for reference.. i think it should be there, added the fact its like that for many other series and games — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a question regarding predecessors and sequels
If a company made a game, would the previous game they made be called a predecessor, even if its not connected to the same series? EzeeWiki (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No. In general we do not refer to games as predecessors or successors to each other, especially if they are unrelated except for their developer. Games are usually sequels, prequels, or unrelated. Occasionally, a game may be referred to as a "spiritual successor". Regardless, we only use those labels if reliable sources are doing so. -- ferret (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was used on an article what would a predecessor actually mean regarding to games made by the same developer? because i came across a game being called a predecessor which was not related to the game, should i edit it? EzeeWiki (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't have enough context to answer, I'd have to see it. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

i have corrected it, hold on let me send you the article, its genshin impact.. if you look at edit history.. you can see what it was before, thankyou friend! EzeeWiki (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Would you agree with me on that? EzeeWiki (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * for context, you changed to  (bold = changes)
 * Your change here is fine, but I think it makes the text chunky. In the context, "its predecessor" is pretty clear in what it means. I would probably change it to (short version of Honkai Impact 3rd) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

So should i leave it as it is or change it to 'Honkai' also do you agree with what im saying.. that its not its predecessor, its just their last game which isnt connected to the series? thankyou guys! EzeeWiki (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it doesn't particularly matter. I don't think "predecessor" was inaccurate, though. Also, in the future you should ask these questions at the article's talkpage. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd trim this even further. Mentioning Honkai twice is redundant. -- ferret (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

ferret that sounds good ill change it if you want? EzeeWiki (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. -- ferret (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ferret - hi i wanted to contribute to articles about video games such as genshin impact, because im very passionate about this game right now. anyway i am going to edit a few things and cut out some things that doesnt really need to be said, and things that wasn't said / with no source, and im going to make it easier to read, is this okay? EzeeWiki (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

This is about genshin impact
hi @ferret i have changed it once again to make sure all sources line up and are correct, i took out Honkai Impact 3rd because no sources mention this, and not making it about another game they made, you could take a look at my edits if you wish, just wanted your opinion on this, if you have a chance to see this! thankyou EzeeWiki (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Other expansions listed
In 1996 WizardWorks published W!Zone, an expansion pack developed by Sunstorm Interactive, Inc. and authorized by Blizzard Entertainment. It was followed by W!Zone II: Retribution, an expansion pack published by WizardWorks and authorized by Blizzard Entertainment

In 1997 Maverick Software published The Next 70 Levels an expansion pack developed by Maverick Software and authorized by Blizzard Entertainment. It was followed by The Next 350 Levels, an expansion pack published by Maverick Software and authorized by Blizzard Entertainment

they are the other expansions listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 23:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please start signing your posts. I missed that content as it was above what you added. I've worked it back in differently. -- ferret (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah i worded it the way i did, because its much easier to read, not everyone knows what canon is, i just put apart of the story like beyond is EzeeWiki (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ferret i have a question about editing
Hey ferret i have a question, if editing an article, is it always best to site real sources, and if no source has mentioned something. is it also best to not mention it aswell? EzeeWiki (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:V is the policy that covers this. If there's no sourcing available, it's generally better to not mention it, unless it's an obvious "sky is blue" type situation. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahh thankyou friend! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzeeWiki (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC) Ferret i would like my IP and my comment removed for security reasons, can you do this?? EzeeWiki (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Omg thankyou my friend, you have been very kind! best admin ever :P EzeeWiki (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of references on lists.
I just wanted to make a quick mention of removing or merging references that are already linked on the List of Switch games. I don't think IP users do know about that as what you said earlier. Just wanted to point this out and, if you could help with that on those pages, I'd greatly appreciate it! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've started reverting the primary IP editor when they don't adhere to the inclusion criteria. They have begun readding entries with sources so hopefully they'll start following it all the time. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I somehow keep seeing them added or readded, but those adding references to those that have been linked. They don't merge them or delete them if a reference is available. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
 * At least they are sourcing. It's a collaboration in the end. Some times we have to clean up a bit. -- ferret (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True. I do clean up from time to time as well, when I can find time to do so. Usually I remove a little at a time. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor edit warring to add unsourced content
I've got an editor, User:DA1, who's edit warring to add unsourced content that he's apparently copying from the IMDb at Rammbock: Berlin Undead. He's added sources for the premiere date twice, but neither source actually says anything about a premiere – and, in fact, one of the sources doesn't even mention the film festival or the date that he added! Can you maybe fully protect the article to force him to discuss this issue on the talk page and come up with a valid source? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I sourced it myself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a completely false statement. In fact I would encourage to meticulously check my edits there. They are sourced, and his claim about me repeatedly adding "19 January" is false (that was only the first time). I added "January 2010" because that's the source that I found. He/she is going by older edits (reverted the first time) while blatantly ignoring my later edits thereafter, all of which were sourced. –DA1 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare my edits here: changing the premiere date in lede and infobox (January 2010; not 19 January), adding the translation of Rammbock ("Battering ram"), adding the UK re-title (Siege of the Dead), adding the production start date (21 October 2009), and adding its North America premiere date (Austin Fantastic Fest; 25 September 2010).
 * In his original revert, which he was partly correct as being unsourced (but which I explicitly responded to on Talk, that I was actively editing it and that all sources will be provided, which they were as listed in my line above, before he yet again reverted it without double-checking), but he had also reverted my portions that were sourced such as North America premiere and expanding 'Critical response'.
 * Compare my edits here: adding an 'Accolades' section with sources, and changing the 'Plot' (because I've seen the film), and expanding 'Critical response' with source.
 * I told him the first time I responded to him on Talk, that I was not wantonly copying from IMDB and that that was a false assumption, and I also gave reasons for all my edits going forward yet he still kept reverting. I had also left Edit summary that the "Locarno" premiere (August 2010) was itself wrong and uncited (it's an "international premiere" not world premiere, the latter was in Germany). He never responded back to me on Talk despite initiating the discussion, he just went straight to reverting me without checking my edits, all of which were sourced.
 * I would like you to be the judge of who is edit-warring and being disruptive. I feel saddened by these accusations, including his statement of having me blocked when I have done nothing wrong. The article is/was a mess and I was cleaning it up and expanding it. Now I'm hesitant to touch it because I am being falsely accused of making uncited edits when I've added cites for every statement. –DA1 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He has never once responded to me in Talk (still hasn't); the lede he keeps reverting to is itself unsourced (no citations for the countries mentioned or the UK title); there's empty redundant paramaters in the infobox (which I had removed); it's missing the North America premiere; he's re-added my Plot and Production, and my Accolade and CR details but merged "Accolades" and "Critical response" sub-sections all into "Reception" section, going against standard norms per MOS:FILM; he's included the full title of the film festival in the infobox 'release' parameter (with American date format) when standard norm is usually to name the city/place to keep it short. –DA1 (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get too heavy on this. Films and MOS:FILM aren't really my areas. I see some issues from both sides. First,, you seem to be reverting wholesale as "unsourced changes" for one unsourced detail, while others seem to have sources at a quick review. Am I missing something? Second, , I cannot not find a single diff where a source for premiering at Max Ophüls Preis Film Festival was provided. You've sourced the North American premiere but never once do I see the January 2010 premiere sourced. And finally, Talk:Rammbock: Berlin Undead is empty of discussion. Tackle the details one at a time. Once large changes are mixed with small opposed/contested changes, it's best to start working in smaller chunks and simply discuss it. WP:BRD for all. -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, and I agree completely with your assessment. If there's a valid objection over the premiere date, then revert the premiere date, not every single cited edit which is counter-productive to improving the article. I also won't label this an "edit war" when there's been 1 revert from my side, and 2 reverts from his side; if you're going to threaten to block someone then at least go by where I've violated the WP:3RR which I hadn't.
 * The discussion in Talk (which I had also linked in my OP) was the two posts he left on my user Talk page, neither of which he had replied to; I had pinged him in both responses. I assume he'd at least been notified of the first one (assuming he hasn't yet seen our second attempted conversation).
 * The citation for the Max Ophüls premiere is in the first comparison link :
 * which includes the quotes, translated into English:
 * This shows that the film indeed premiered or screened at a festival (Jan 2010) well before the claimed August 2010 premiere (Locarno festival).
 * I know exactly what NinjaRobotPirate was ticked off by (having reviewed the edits and reverts), it was the one single mention of "19 January" in the BODY of the article, which was a hold-over from the original edit I had made (which he first reverted). My edits of the date in the lede and infobox were simply "January 2010", and every other edit I have made in the article was cited, but was reverted. –DA1 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem having a discussion with him. Issue was he literally didn't respond to my reply, and his subsequent reply was a warning of blocking me. How do you have a discussion when the other side won't even reply? And what can we discuss, his only objection is the premiere date but he reverts everything else. I'd happily let the article say "Year 3010" (for the time being) if it can mean I can edit the rest of the article without it being reverted. It puts me in a really difficult position because it misleadingly paints me as mass vandalizing the article when he only had one valid objection. DA1 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed this source because it was in the lead, and NOT in the prose, which is where I was looking. Generally citations in lead and infobox should be avoided unless controversial. Everything in the lead and infobox should exist in prose with proper sourcing. WP:LEADCITE. The prose should always be sourced. Whether the lead additionally needs sourced depends on the content in question. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. And I too have admitted that there was a "19 January" hold-over in the BODY. But all my other points of contention are valid and withstanding, and NPR also saw my edit in lede and infobox since he has quoted my citation there. Why revert all my other edits? He was perfectly valid to revert or change the premiere date. But I do not agree with how he's handled the rest, including the warning to have me banned. DA1 (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hardly think adding unsourced content to an article is "cleaning it up". DA1 has twice added unsourced claims of a world premiere on a specific date at a specific film festival.  The first citation did not mention the date, the film festival, or a world premiere.  The citation was essentially a decoration added to make the statement look more credible.  The second time, a different citation was added.  This citation mentions the film festival and the film in question, but it does not mention a world premiere or the date of this world premiere.  At this point, I'm thinking the editor is either trolling or incompetent, and I have to manually check every single statement added to this article to make sure that the text being added is found in the citation.  Everyone probably has some depressing, hard-luck story right now, but I'm really not in the best mood.  After I spent hours vomiting because of a COVID19 vaccine, my dog died, and I had to spent an hour or two digging a grave in my backyard for him.  As far as COVID19 stories go, that's probably pretty mild, but it's enough to ruin my week.  And do I really need to quote MOS:FILM: "If a film has only a handful of accolades, then a paragraph may be sufficient identifying them, and not necessarily be in its own section." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the analysis of the source for the January 2010 premiere. The source simply states the film was shown at the festival and does not denote it as a premiere. As for the rest, again I'm just really not familiar with MOS:FILM to make judgement on other changes. Sorry to hear about your real life struggles, you have my sympathy.
 * At this point, DA1 should propose the changes on talk page and seek consensus. WP:BRD requires the one making changes to discuss and argue in favor of them, not the reverter. His user talk page is not the appropriate place, the article's talk page should be used. I've essentially already said this and still don't see any discussion from DA1 at the article's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, right now, I'm obviously not dealing well with trivial issues, like dates of film premieres, so I'll try to back off. I'll take the article off my watchlist for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, DA1 should propose the changes on talk page and seek consensus. WP:BRD requires the one making changes to discuss and argue in favor of them, not the reverter. His user talk page is not the appropriate place, the article's talk page should be used. I've essentially already said this and still don't see any discussion from DA1 at the article's talk page. -- ferret (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, right now, I'm obviously not dealing well with trivial issues, like dates of film premieres, so I'll try to back off. I'll take the article off my watchlist for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Reducing protection for Minecraft
Hi there, I saw that you had protected Minecraft in 2019 (log), and I want to ask if you object to reducing the protection level to autoconfirmed. There hasn't been many problems on the talk page, so I would hope that would be a good indicator on how things are going. Edits on the article have been slow, and I would hope that reducing the level would encourage more editors to contribute. Thanks! SWinxy (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll give it a shot. -- ferret (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let's hope I won't regret this. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

MOBA article - "origin story" correction, author of StarCraft map
Hello,

The source is somewhat complicated, given the topic of the article. I actually played StarCraft actively when that map came out, and played that map, and myself and other people still have the file, which includes a description that credits Nicholas Taijeron AKA Gunner_4_ever as the real author. This has been re-discovered several times in the past by people who had also been misinformed about the creator being an "Aeon64", whose existence back then can't even be confirmed. The source could be referenced in a few ways, because of this.

There is a blog post by David Dannelly that goes into detail about this, where he mentions that this was confirmed to him in an interview with the original creator, and provides download links for the original map files. There is also the archived version of the original creator's webpage, where he mentions being the original creator. The most official source, but I fear, least usable one in the case of Wikipedia, is of course the map file itself, opened in StarCraft (or StarCraft Editor), where the description mentioning the original author is clearly readable. I'll provide you with links so you can take a look and judge for yourself, if you feel like.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150219131451/http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/blizzard2/maps.html

https://daviddannelly.com/blog/zjYm/the-origin-of-the-moba-aeon-of-strife-and-defense-of-the-ancients

I would appreciate some input in how to go about this, since I think this may be an unconventional type of source. The most official one would be the original map file, but the easiest one would be the interview with the map's actual creator, I think?

Regards,

MrJelle (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of these sources are usable on Wikipedia for this detail, see WP:USERG and WP:BLOG. It's best to leave discussions like this on the talk page of the article so more editors might see it and (even if weeks or months later) potentially provide new information. -- ferret (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest we proceed, then? The information on the page as it is, is verifiably false. I want to correct this factual error but I don't know how to make the source work because of the oddball nature of this. It is possible for anyone to check for themselves, too. StarEdit was made freely available by Blizzard for download, anyone can download the map from the original creator's website in the Wayback machine (just tested again), or from one of the original upload pages David Dannelly found, and open it in StarEdit to check the briefing and see this - https://i.imgur.com/8QBBz36.jpeg - in the mission briefing, or this - https://i.imgur.com/oBHAjD7.png - in the properties of the map, the equivalent of checking the author of a book by reading it on the spine of the book.
 * This information is accurate without a doubt, but I just don't know how to make the source work for Wikipedia. MrJelle (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest we proceed in anyway. Verifiability, not truth. The reliable secondary sources say Aeon64. Again, the article's talk page should be used for content discussions, not my user talk page. -- ferret (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, apologies. I shall provide links to other secondary sources in the discussion page, which will hopefully lead to a correction. MrJelle (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Supposed blacklist link on page error.
I would like to issue a problem when inserting a web link to I, Zombie's Japanese release date. It somehow makes an 'external link' appear when trying to save the edit. https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000037904.html

Is there anything to counteract the error I witnessed in the future? This is honestly the first time I've had this error message happen. Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. It seems you've been able to use a similar link already. But I use source editing, not Visual Editor, so I'm not sure. -- ferret (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well I guess it weirdly went through anyway. I just came across that and it somehow went away and now it's displaying it correctly. Thanks for the help! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

List of Nintendo Switch games
I just wanted to give a heads-up that someone used GameFAQs as a source for adding this game, called Crazy Capture. I can't seem to find that particular link history to that. I just wanted you to know, that I'll either remove said game or replace the link with a more reliable one. I assume some of those games also came from GameFAQs as well, so I was wondering if we could get this page's attention on the matter? Thank you! Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Go for it. GameFAQs is an unreliable source, feel free to clean it up. -- ferret (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

A very belated Award
ferret, this is really late, but I want to give you this to show that this one's as much yours as it is mine. Thanks so much for all the research assistance; I can't express my appreciation enough. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

Vgmdb isn't reliable source?
Seems incredibly reliable and trustworthy to me, and it's been used in the past often. 101.181.21.72 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Unreliable, regardless of whatever other articles it may have been added to, per WP:VG/RS and WP:USERG. User generated sites by definition are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Noticed how you work hard to cancel Vandalism, just wanted to say you're doing a Great Job. Keep up the Good Work

Dunutubble (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC) 

Hello
Hi Ferret. While creating DreamDoll I noticed that it had been salted by you. I believe she's significantly more notable than she was when her corresponding title was salted. She's since charted on Billboard and this google search for references brings up a lot to work with. may you please unsalt the title? versacespace leave a message!  12:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for ferret to comment, because I don't want to step on his toes, but I did a search and I can say there probably is an argument for notability now. While not exactly significant coverage, she was mentioned in an NPR 2020 female rapper feature. Sergecross73   msg me  12:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't even remember this. I suspect I was fulfilling an RFPP request. Serge is far better experienced in the music areas to make a judgement call so I leave it in his capable hands. -- ferret (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll unprotect it, but only creating the article or publishing a draft is imminent. If you're about to do it, just let me know. But if it's more of a "Yeah maybe I'll do that in a couple months when I have more time" type thing, I'd rather keep it protected and wait until then, to prevent any further half-baked attempts. Just let me know some time, here or on my talk page. Sergecross73   msg me  16:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay not pinging since you're watching this page, I'll ask when needed. versacespace  leave a message!  17:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It's Xbox 'LIve' enabled games not Xbox games
There is a difference of Xbox Live enabled games, and Xbox games. EzeeWiki (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From the view of "Are they part of the Xbox branding?" there is not. They are part of the brand. Please stop wasting people's time on these things. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well It's not actually more a part of Xbox branding as they are a part of Windows, It's just Xbox live enabled games on windows. EzeeWiki (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, to disagree. but It's more of a windows game enabled to use Xbox live, I know It's a part of the brand, but I'm going to separate them with 'List of Xbox games' and 'List of Windows games On Xbox Live' is that okay? EzeeWiki (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, please just leave it alone. If you want to discuss it, use the article's talk page. WP:BRD. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already discussed it with a few people, I am not changing much, just separating them as 'Windows Games on Xbox live' and 'Xbox Games' Because right now It looks like the list is showing 'Xbox games' when its really just showing windows games, Even you can see that It's not Xbox games, It's windows games that are enabled to use Xbox live? EzeeWiki (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't lie to me and waste my time. You realize that any editor can see your contributions, right? You have not discussed it with anyone outside of edit notes when you changed it and my talk page here. If you cannot comprehend that "Xbox Live enabled games" are part of the "Xbox branding", I cannot help you. Microsoft calls it's gaming platform on Windows "Xbox" as well. I'm looking at the "Xbox App" right this moment, on my PC. If you want to discuss this content further, please use the article's talk page. Do not use my user talk further. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not lying, I haven't spoken to anyone on Wikipedia about it, but outside of Wikipedia I have, as Wikipedians we are supposed to be making Wikipedia a site that has easy to understand information, Just think of it like this, 'Windows games that use Xbox Live' and 'Xbox games' all I'm going to do it make that comparison easy to see, I mean, don't be salty, just understand that I'm actually trying to help this Wikipedia, you should be happy that I'm doing my job. Fine I wont talk here again, but just know all I'm doing is helping. EzeeWiki (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you aren't discussing it on Wikipedia, with Wikipedia editors, in the context of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it doesn't really count. -- ferret (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry ferret, I respect you a lot, as I love Wikipedia, It has helped me through times in my life, that's why I'm trying my best to give back to the community, I have changed 'Xbox' article but I'm hoping you'll be okay with it. sorry and thankyou :) EzeeWiki (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not post to my user talk again (Now or in the future), following your personal attack here. See WP:NOBAN for more information and respect this request. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes
I was wondering if there's a possibility that you could help me with changing these to a separate line, ? This list is too large and appears too slow to do it all at once. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro
 * I've no interest in this task. It's not really beneficial, as single line table rows with double pipe are allowed. If you want to do it, go for it. -- ferret (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Unprotection of page
Hi, could you please unprotect the page KOKOKO!? Roniius talk to me 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't see why this is salted, and the name of the band is not spurious uppercasing. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

I'm not good at saying no
I was gonna make a post at WT:VG about that additon on how I should say that we can't do that stuff. So thanks, I guess. P anini 🥪

Editing out excess information on the Warcraft Page
Makes no sense. How long should the "this game was first announced to come out at this time, but then it actually came out at that time" stay up there? Should we go back an edit that information for all the games into the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:cc80:4440:a147:4eae:4519:4cb8 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about where I reverted your unexplained blanking? If you don't want your edits mistaken as vandalism or simple drive by blankings, you should ensure you explain what you're doing and why. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Reply to Fallout 3 DLC
Dear Ferret, Thank you for your response. I am relatively new to Wikipedia editing. I am contacting you in regards to the DLC addition I made. I must have forgotten to add the citation, I can fix that. But if you don't mind, can I ask you for some advice. I was wondering if citing the game itself is a verified source? I appreciate your time. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Your edits represent WP:OR, and citing the game itself doesn't really change that. You may find editing the Fallout Fandom/Gamepedia more fruitful, these kinds of details don't really belong on Wikipedia but more fan-oriented sites. See also WP:VGSCOPE. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding right away but I was wondering why it counts as Original Research? While playing the game, the beginning of the Pointe Lookout DLC forces you into a conversation with the character, which is what I added to Wikipedia. It happens every time the DLC is first activated and starts the plot. I don't mean to be argumentative but I am having a hard time understanding why that is original research when it is the Fallout 3 DLC. Thank you for your time --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to your edits in general on several pages, not that one explicit. It is simply unnecessary detail for a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. It's fine on a fan site, but unimportant here. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. I am sorry if my edits bothered you. I guess I was trying to add more information to the plot section for Pointe Lookout cause it seemed somewhat inaccurate. While the Pitt plot section has more detail about the plot, Pointe Lookout doesn't. As for the other pages, I can't say anything besides that I have been discussing it with other users to better understand. However, my specific reason for messaging you was to understand the issues with what I added to Fallout 3 DLC. I want to know what I did wrong with my edit. I know my citation didn't take, which is the main issue cause it was then unverified information. However, I don't understand how original research contributes if the DLC story always starts the same way. Thank you for your time. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sock
Can you please block User:Minecraft eye with a million (1.0e+6) conjunctives? AIV report was declined with "No such username" but the user shows. aeschylus (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ferret (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Star Citizen
Hey, I thought I should just pop on about that edit reversion on the Star Citizen, piece. The only aspect that I added at all was,

"Due to initial successes with the Kickstarter, the developer, Cloud Imperium Games, considered reworking the planned scale of the game. After a vote from backers, the release date of 2014 was removed, and the currently ongoing development cycle began."

So you said that this was clearly promotional, and I am quite confused. How is this in any way promotional? All that we are noting is the vote we were missing, which is what that citation referred to... In all other regards, the article is the same, except for the additional sourcing I added to just help flush out the article. Can you please explain your reasoning behind the reversion?

Thanks, Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please use the article's talk page. The quick response: Your edits are clearly promotional as you're working to lessen the negative impact of the game's continuously delayed release, and in addition, your statement is not backed by the sources you provided. The vote was to continue counting funding, to which they added more stretch goals. The blog post made no mention of "release date" at all, or a "new ongoing development cycle". -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I thought I was supposed to reachout to you since I wanted to understand your reasoning (verse the game talks page). Also, I am sorry that they appeared as promotional edits, becuase I can most certainly assure you they were certainly not. At least to me, I was absolutely not intending to lessen the negative impact of the release date, I was just merely noting what I have found in my research of this game. My apologies, and thank you for taking your time to explain.

Sincerly, Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this pass muster?
"[Scrappy served as] a member of Shaggy's pit crew alongside Scooby and Shaggy's girlfriend, Googie. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcupcake19 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've kinda ignored the slow building of a list of "everything Scrappy ever posed or worked as". It has no meaningful information. But explain why you believe an encyclopedic general reader (Not a Scrappy fan, just someone reading an encyclopedia) cares to know that Scrappy not only worked on a pit crew during exactly 1 episode/movie, but specifically did so alongside Shaggy's girlfriend Googie, a little known side character who rarely appears and has no further context or information? Because these characters have performed dozens of throw away jobs as part of a cartoon, it's trivial information. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the pit crew consisted of Scooby and Googie. Predicting that my hypothetical reader would ask "who's Googie?" I wanted to show who he was part of the pit crew for, and who else was in the pit crew. Why? Well, they came there to learn about Scrappy, and that's what they're getting.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We can boil it down to "Scrappy has performed numerous jobs, such as: short example list of 3-5 entries." We don't need to give anything more, and certainly not mention other characters without real context. Googie would never be explained at Scrappy's page, and doesn't even have an entry at List_of_Scooby-Doo_characters. It's useless information. -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, now I would like to share my perspective. I just want to make it clear, first of all, that I wasn't asking for whether you personally would add it based on how "useful" you believe it to be, but stuff like OR or valid citation, which you've taken issue with before. I have my own argument for why it could (and should be added) If someone has come to a fictional character's page and specifically looks at their biography, then, well, why not oblige? It only takes a few words to summarize who Googie is and what her relation is to the other characters. I have said before, people reacted positively to learning information about Scrappy before. We could debate about this, but at the end of the day, my edits are not warranting immediate deletion. Have a nice day!Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As has repeatedly be linked to you, WP:NOT and WP:VNOT. There is also Manual_of_Style/Television that explicitly says not to chronicle everything they ever did, and only summarize major events. Wikipedia is not a fan site. You can chronicle all of this at Fandom to your heart's content. At this point your severe WP:IDHT in the face of multiple editors telling you this is not how we write Wikipedia articles is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Uninvolved Admin) - - What Ferret is saying is correct. This is fundamentally not the sort of content that Wikipedia covers. If you want to write about trivial fictional details, go find a Scooby Doo fan wiki to write for or something. If you refuse to stop, your account will be blocked from editing.  Sergecross73   msg me  20:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Consider the following
Dear Ferret, Do you think the KFConsole will be taken seriously like the Switch, PlayStation, and Xbox? KFC would have to spent millions of dollars to create a console. This includes R&D, manufacturing, patenting, and of course, marketing. Also, KFC would have to develop first-party games that would make the console different from the Big Three. The last major competitor to join the Console Wars was Microsoft in 2001. After reading this, can you make a conclusion?2601:81:8500:198C:8D98:3350:950:9CC7 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM, but, no, the KFConsole is not a serious entry. It's basically a PC with a custom case, and a marketing stunt. It'll have limited units available, and I doubt will even be sold retail. -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Team B Vital
Hi Ferret! I just saw the team b vital channel—I'm very glad to see it, as the weekly articles at AFI aren't getting that much engagement. Would is be possible to let WT:AFI and WT:VIT know about it, or is it still too experimental? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still considering it a trial effort right now. We're voting on the third topic today, and if it goes well, I'll ponder removing that designation. I'd like to see how participation holds up and whether we continue to see a range of editors involved. Thus far though we've brought an article to GA (continued effort after B) and one to B, so I think it's going well. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not just well, that's orders of magnitude better than AFI. Compare that to the bottom of the page at Articles for improvement/Accomplishments. The unfortunate truth of that project is that the nominations page is the only part of it that's still active, and even getting that back up took a lot of effort. If you continue having results like that on the Team B Vital channel, it might totally supplant AFI. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's two issues at play there. WP:AFI doesn't necessarily have reach. I occasionally see it posted to some user's talk pages who signed up, but the engagement otherwise isn't there. Whereas the Discord channel was formed after (repeated) requests by established editors who wanted the idea of "Hey let's all work together on something." So there's a pool of dedicated folks for the effort right now, and engaging them is simple. The question may be how limited is that pool long term. Secondly... topic selection. I see some recent AFI topics have been repeated in the last couple months, and those seem to have been the more interesting ones too (I'd now like to suggest Pork chop for Team B Vital. :P And it's too bad Lumbersexual is redirected.). But recently the topics were very broad such as International law and Organized religion. Part of what's working for Team B Vital is scouting out interesting topics people want to work on. This means a lot of the drier or too-broad topics simply are skipped, as well as anything under DS or BLP (to avoid conflicts). We're curating to "Things people want to work on", and letting them vote from there. That does mean some boring but important topics will continue to be neglected, of course, but it aids the engagement. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are good thoughts! Yeah, I guess there is a slight divergence of purpose there. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

2b2t
Hello ferret, might I request another year (or maybe even indef) semi protect on 2b2t? Since your last year of semi expired a few weeks ago, seven out of seven IPs that have edited the page have been reverted. Leijurv (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed and found only 3 vandalism edits. I am not quite ready to re-protect yet. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for checking! You are correct that many edits were good faith but unsourced (or similarly reverted), and only a few were bad faith. Please let me know if you have the page watchlisted or some such, and it would be annoying if I asked again. Otherwise, I will come back if/when it becomes more of a problem. :) Leijurv (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do have it watchlisted. -- ferret (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Consensus
Ferret, there was a consensus that you "just canned", and it previously seemed you were on board about matters. I'm not sure what the problem is with the references, it's secondary source as you wished earlier, I believe, and I'm really a bit lost on what policy says a certain reference needs to be significant enough. I was trying to add basic information that appeared important, as well as bringing in the episode descriptions for correcting information previously added by another user (that none of the jobs Scrappy assisted with lasted more then an episode in question). I believed (though you disagree) that this was important basic information. WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:PRIMARYNOT are my reasoning in this case, and mine isn't the only thing that references episodes. Please, let's talk this out. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As plain and direct as I can be: It's not. This is not important information. It's FANCRUFT. That's why not a single editor, at any of the various projects, noticeboards or user talk pages you've approached, has supported the restoration of any of this content. Please consider editing Fandom instead, if you want to collect this kind of deep Scrappy-Doo lore. -- ferret (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I still have some questions and concerns on this front. You see, in the past fourteen days, I have made an effort to submit to your concerns about Fancruft, trimming down a better biography section, which you seemed OK with the concept of despite some concerns about certain things. You even noted on July Tenth of my secondary source concerning the episode about Scrappy's being born that it "May be usable in a biography section but none exists right now." Combined with that and choosing to wipe everything, it felt to me as if it seemed as if you had suddenly changed your mind. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It was after making that particular edit note that I realized MOS:TV says NOT to build such biography sections. I tried several times to point this out to you once I was aware of that guideline, but you continued to build up and add additional trivia. I had also missed that the birth city factoid was already mentioned in the article. Since that was the case, I removed the biography section and it's build up of cruft. It's time for you to move on and find new ways to edit, or direct your energy to a site that welcomes such detail. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Ferret, I understand your concerns. Know that I am not here to request you to change your mind of anything, but only in hopes of clarifying the situation. Can I ask where and why you pointed this out? I can only find the July 30th post wipe, and you didn't actually point that out in the edit summary.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's very difficult to dig back over these couple of months of discussing this topic with you. I make dozens of edits a day to a wide range of content. In the end it's irrelevant. You're aware now. I don't know how "why I pointed it out" would matter, but I pointed it out because it's relevant to the topic at hand. It's the Manual of Style for TV Character articles. Edit: I happened to find it. I linked you directly to it on July 15th in your last talk page section here, which is in my archives. -- ferret (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sorry, I should have phrased that better. Is this the comment you meant? Not really picking up the biography angle:
 * " As has repeatedly be linked to you, WP:NOT and WP:VNOT. There is also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Role_in_"SHOW_NAME" that explicitly says not to chronicle everything they ever did, and only summarize major events. Wikipedia is not a fan site. You can chronicle all of this at Fandom to your heart's content. At this point your severe WP:IDHT in the face of multiple editors telling you this is not how we write Wikipedia articles is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)"--Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please waste someone else's time. -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Question on Gearbox feedback
Hello Ferret, we noticed that you denied the change from Gearbox Software to Gearbox Entertainment with “The entirety of the article is about the Software subsidiary and it's work, with the holding company only being established in 2019 two years ago. This is analogous with the holding company Activision Blizzard and the subsidiaries Activision and Blizzard Entertainment. As such, this article should remain as is, though it needs some minor adjustment and fixes (The parent of "Software" is not Embracer, but Gearbox Entertainment, for example).” Would it be possible to specify which “minor adjustments and fixes” you suggest we fix?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorderlandsFanAtGearboxOfficial (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of those changes have already been made in the subsequent discussion. Are you the same individual as ? Note that this username really is not suitable either, and it's clear you're editing in an official capacity for the company. Doing so is against our conflict of interest policies. -- ferret (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

New Vegas Reappraisals Reversions
I figured I'd have this conversation here instead of us constantly reverting each other's additions. I've already outlined my arguments for wanting to add the Steam reviews in that edit summary I wrote: it's not unreliable. This isn't people review bombing a game on steam because of a controversy or bots trying to artificially inflate the score; getting an Overwhelmingly Positive rating on Steam isn't something easily achievable, especially with a game like New Vegas that, as of writing, as over 105,000 reviews. Like I said, it shows that the game is popular not only amongst critics but also audiences. There are plenty of other Wikipedia pages for games, too, that list Steam audience scores and mention the Overwhelmingly Positive rating - A Hat in Time, Mount & Blade: Warband, Amid Evil. I suppose you could make the argument that these are indie games, so it makes sense that you'd mention Steam reviews in the reception section of the game, but again I'm not bringing up Steam reviews in the reception part of the article. I'm mentioning specifically in the reappraisal subsection to show how audiences love New Vegas. Cyn7kaL (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Steam reviews, and all user generated reviews, are WP:USERG, and unusable on Wikipedia. This isn't something that's a matter of belief, it's a core guideline of the site. Additionally, MOS:VG, the manual of style of video games, explicitly calls this out in the section of Reception. Any statements made based on a user score or number of user reviews, such as "It's overwhelming on Steam, showing long standing fan following.", is a matter of WP:OR. If there are other games explicitly quoting and citing to Steam Reviews, they need it removed (This is an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument. The OTHERSTUFF is wrong too, but there are only so many volunteers). The only time we can mention Steam Reviews directly is when a reliable secondary source (Such as IGN, GameSpot, etc), happens to take notice and comment on it. This generally occurs for games suffering review bombing though, more often than not. -- ferret (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's a valid reason for not wanting Steam reviews. If I'm able to provide a secondary source(s) that mentions the positive review score, would I be able to use it in the article? Cyn7kaL (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it must be a clearly reliable secondary source. There's tons of unreliable gaming blogs and sites out there. See WP:VG/S for our vetted list of reliable ones. And again refer to the MOS on how best to write it. You wouldn't just say "It has overwhelming reviews on Steam" and site the secondary source, but would say what the source comments on, i.e. "IGN noted..." -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback about N64 Gamer
Just saw your comment on my user page. Please don’t ask me not to add N64 Gamer (Magazine) without discussion, without providing more information. Wikipedia is open to edits by users and there are no rules preventing people from doing so without supposed “discussion”. Rrrus7 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Took me a minute to find what this was about, being quite a while ago. You're simply mistaken. The reason I left you a warning is because you improperly attempted to add the magazine to a template that DOES require discussion, and did not actually add it to the template in question. From there, you began adding it to several articles even though it didn't work, hence I asked you to stop. Adding invalid parameters to templates is problematic and often causes maintenance categories to be populated so that editors can clean them up. I asked you not to add it to templates and project pages without discussion, as those do often require consensus first. -- ferret (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Garena Free Fire
Hi Ferret, just saw your message on my talk. Garena Free Fire is trying to edit the page and adding citations on it. Please do not delete our hard work. It takes time to complete all the edit. At least do not change the content we added with reliable citations. Thank you.

-- ferret (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC) Please do not add or change content, as you did at Garena Free Fire, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsmeZhang (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you have a conflict of interest and do not seem to intend to stop your promotional editing, I've partially blocked you from the page indefinitely. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ferret, I was not aware of the COI restrictions before. Please let me know how can I or anyone else update the oudated content on the page. All the citations I provided are reliable and publicly available on the Internet. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsmeZhang (talk • contribs) 14:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read the conflict of interest information I left you, and create proper edit requests on the talk page of the article. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

2K resolution page
Hey Ferret, could you check if what I've written on the bottom of the talk page of "2K Resolution" has enough reasoning for re-adding that 1920x1080 should be considered a 2K resolution.

In my opinion also the "comparison to 1080p"-section should be removed completely, and perhaps replaced with "comparison to 1440p"-section, which is long overdue considering how widespread the misconception "2K = 1440p" has become.

Thank you.

Ikep (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm really not overly interested in this topic. I'm sure someone will eventually reply. If you have sources, then edit based on them. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I have a question before I dare to edit a Wikipedia article for the first time (for me); Is it allowed to copy someone else's text from past article history, and re-add it on the current article? I believe some parts from a year ago are more accurate than what's on it currently (I do have good sources supporting the edit in my opinion). Thanks. -- Ikep (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just mention in the edit summary that it came from an older revision and you should be fine. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Jun Matsumoto page
Please return the Jun Matsumoto page to its original(Revision as of 13:20, 19 August 2021) form. These are all references from June Matsumoto's IMDb.(Jun Matsumoto - IMDb) But,Suzu2309 continues to delete this content.

-- 59.16.17.46 (talk) 23:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to participate in discussions on the article's talk page. IMDB is not a reliable source, nor is it all encompassing. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

high-rating drama Hana Yori Dango 2
If you go into the Arashi page, Arashi began to gain commercial success as it was used as the opening theme song for the high-rating drama Hana Yori Dango 2 whose protagonist is played by Matsumoto,That's what it says. Arashi gained popularity through Jun Matsumoto drama. He is a Japanese actor. Also On January 27, 2019, Arashi announced that group activities would be suspended as of December 31, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4430:d116:27b0:b1e8:4223:2666:b0a2 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm completely uninterested and don't care, use the article talk page as noted above. My only role here has been to revert an editor who was evading a block and gaming the system. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

TotalTruthTeller24
Mr. Ferret, I know you're familiar with this sock, I would like to pass information on you and deal with him with his recreation at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_President_(Rick_and_Morty)&action=history. 177.241.33.160 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks to already be handled. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

List of video games notable for negative reception
For Bubsy 3d I changed "and referenced it as a rip-off of Super Mario 64, which was released around the same time." "and referenced it as a rip-off of Super Mario 64, despite being in development before Super Mario 64 was announced" because the original statement implies that Bubsy 3d is a rip-off. Which it is not. -Jymasktape.
 * The core fact is that they were released around the same time, which is why it was viewed as a kind of rip off. The fact that their development overlapped for a long time is somewhat irrelevant. It's what sources said, and it's not on us to go "even though they were wrong.". That's WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You are kind of right. The sources were just talking about the opinions of Gametrailers and nothing else, so my edit did violate the no original research rule. However, I do think that we should still leave a statement clarifying the truth. Would this work? " GameTrailers named it their eighth worst video game ever made and referenced it as a rip-off of Super Mario 64, which was released around the same time.[83] However, Bubsy 3d was in development before Super Mario 64 was announced.[417] My source is this: https://retrovolve.com/a-chat-with-bubsys-michael-berlyn-part-1-the-rise-and-fall-of-bubsy/ JYmasktape (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You should be using the article's talk page. Again though, you're trying to counter negative reception, which is POV-pushing. An interview is also non-independent, so it's essentially him against the game's critics. -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiBenboy and Infinite Warfare
Hello, I have replied to you on WikiBenBoy's wall, but you didn't answer. It's Ok. Also, I don't mind you being a talk-page stalker :)

I may have sounded a bit harsh about WikiBenBoy. The truth is he was quite brilliant about detecting that campaign mode in Black Ops III wasn't even mentioned in the Trusted Reviews' review of Infinite Warfare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call_of_Duty:_Infinite_Warfare&diff=next&oldid=1030735263

Also, recently he discovered that a false score of a review was given in an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_of_Solace&diff=prev&oldid=1042233638

On the other hand he once changed "GameStar reviewer likes sniper simulation in the game" to "GameStar enjoyed the simulation of controlling a sniper". It's this logic that if you have a chopper simulation, it's a simulation of controlling a chopper, so if you have a sniper simulation it's a simulation of controlling a sniper. It's wrong thinking - sniper simulation is a simulation of being a sniper, just like a thief simulation is a simulation of being a thief.

I felt he wasn't good at rephrasing, while he was good at detecting mistakes. I might have sounded a bit harsh, but actually I wished him good...

Now about the revision you reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call_of_Duty:_Infinite_Warfare&diff=1035200203&oldid=1035089480

- "while he appreciates floating through the void and hiding behind an asteroid field", actually, you are right, too long. WikiBenBoy's "While enjoying the variety of gameplay in space" is better.

- "what her or his goal is" - ok, let's use WikiBenBoy's "they". I wasn't taught "they" at school, it's still strange to me, but probably you two are right here.

- "He also feels the characters' arcs are "rushed to an uncomfortable degree"". Now, rushed characters' arcs, perhaps for sake of budget, is something a bit different than bad characterization. Also, the example I gave seems to be quite important, as IGN's review also mentions rapid change of Staff Sergeant Omar's attitude towards the android. You wrote that this way too much space will be dedicated to EGM. Well, yes. But now, when you mentioned it, we can write more about other opinions about the campaign, too. It would be good to expand mention of Trusted Reviews' opinion, as their reviewer calls campaign "immersive experience", which is a very positive opinion. Actually, without it, it is unclear why we are writing "The single-player campaign received mixed reviews.", as most cited reviews are a bit negative. On the other hand, I can't find Trusted Reviews anywhere in the list of reliable sources. Still, we even have a redirect to Trusted Reviews, so it seems to be quite a source. If it's not, I can try to find another good opinion about campaign in reliable sources.

If you agree it's the way to go, I will try to do it day after tomorrow.

MichalZim (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply because I didn't see anything further to say. Exactly what are you asking of me? Each point you bring up here, you seem to say "Yes, you were right about that." so I'm not sure what you want. Also, I think it's been mentioned before, but you're more likely to get somewhere or have opinions from more editors if you use the article's talk page rather than coming to user talk pages every few months apart.
 * It seems at the end that you may be asking two things: 1) Should we include more information about Trusted Review's review, and 2) Is Trusted Reviews even reliable? We need to answer the second one first, and I haven't look into it yet. You might consider asking WT:VG/S about Trust Review's reliability. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, you've been very helpful. MichalZim (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

TrustedReviews reliable according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_20#TrustedReviews

Now I am starting to check what I have written in my sandbox. Thanks again. MichalZim (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject popular culture
My sincerest apologies. I will stop immediatelySouthParkFan65 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

One more sock
With the amount of times Jun Matsumoto has been edited by a sock of the same guy I feel like if it gets socked one more time we should just indef protect it because of the persistent socking. Seriously, this guy is starting to seem like they're trying to become an LTA at this point with how persistent they are. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already blocked the sock and another IP range. The article is already protected, and I hesitate to move to ECP yet. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I didn't actually know it was already protected. I thought the protection expired. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 13:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No they are autoconfirmed socks. -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I got another one for ya. 14.4.118.146. They made an edit to my talk page about the other editor who peer reviewed Jun Matsumoto. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#0001 18:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Blocked. -- ferret (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Read, no issue. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ace Combat 20 million
The 17 million units physically shipped + 3 million digital sales was announced at Tokyo Game Show during a livestream. The video is here, the announcement is at timestamp 22:05: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5IjCfMnBbc&t=22m05s

I wasn't sure how to reference a video like this, or if this is even allowed since technically it's a primary source? I mean, it's very definitely legitimate, but I'm just not sure how the reference should be made. ~SlyCooperFan1 22:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Primary source, an official announcement, should be fine for a basic factoid. See Cite AV media. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re-edited, let me know if this is acceptable :) ~SlyCooperFan1 22:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Quick question/probable block needed
I'm fairly certain I've seen this IP having been blocked before on another IP, but Special:Contributions/2600:8805:C400:649::/64 seriously needs some looking at. I figure you probably know something about whatever they're trying to do, or if it's block evasion/ an LTA. Perryprog (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't immediately tickle any brain cells. I personally stay out of the "is a caption needed or not" stuff, as it strikes me as a pointless MOS line in the sand. -- ferret (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's one of those things. Yeah, I'm not gonna bother caring about that, then... thanks! Perryprog (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts
. I See She Still Capitalizes first letter of each word. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 16:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Howdy DFO :) I think those are mostly quotes. English does seem more coherent in this appeal overall. Also pinging in Yamla. I'm always open to appeals and WP:SO if they have followed the rules and avoided further socking. It's been 6 months since the original March block, but only a bit over 5 since the last known sockpuppet block on April 22. They're about a week early, but meh. More importantly, Nakita may be 3X banned. I did tag them as such, but the first sock was not originally blocked as checkuser, and was found in a later sweep. So there were 3 distinct sockpuppet blocks, but may have only been 2 checkuser sweeps, so possibly 3X can be allowed to slide. Yamla can maybe confirm how many CUs were ran against her? -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I imagine Yamla ran one for this request. I have to be neutral as I lack objectivity. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 17:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bit hard to count, for confusing reasons. Definitely two: and, on different dates. Nobody's run a checkuser recently, as far as I can see. If the consensus is to consider moving forward with an unblock, we can check. I'm inclined to let 3X slide in this case if (and it's a big if) there's a plausible path to unblocking. --Yamla (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, then I'd say the biggest issue with the appeal is that it's an apology mainly, which is great. But it doesn't demonstrate an understanding of why they got blocked in the first place and what they were doing wrong. Perhaps a prompt towards them in that direction to see if they can answer? -- ferret (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Been prompting and prompting and I don't see any understanding. Perhaps someone else could explain it better? Maybe this time. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help merging histories of duplicate drafts
Hi,

Draft:The Chestnut Man and Draft:The Chestnut Man (TV show) are about the same topic and should be merged. Can the version histories also be merged, as we had discussed on Discord earlier? DraconicDark (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ferret (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidates appointed
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:


 * is appointed as a CheckUser and Oversighter.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.
 * is appointed as an Oversighter.
 * is appointed as a CheckUser.

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

Katietalk 04:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Congratulations
Congrats my dear friend and colleague. I know you shall do well with your new appointments and the tools that come with it. Congratulations once more you, & a major thank you for all the hard work you have put in towards bettering the collaborative project. Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A missing sock drawer!
Hi ferret—congratulations on your CheckUser appointment! I was wondering if there's anywhere that you'd want me to point patrolling AIV sysops towards for documentation on the cancelled platforms LTA, now that your sock drawer has been zapped. (Though, there hasn't been any activity from them for at least a little while, so my fingers are crossed...) Perryprog (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. As the user is IP-only, with no solidly identified accounts, I'm not sure how it could otherwise be tracked as SPI cases on IPs are generally discouraged. Any thoughts? I chose to delete my sockdrawer subpage, which contained a particular user who has no known account. The others I could put together SPI pages for if they resurfaced. -- ferret (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent question, and one which there's a good deal of disagreement over the answer to. See Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like we don't really have a good answer to this, but I think most AIV admins will take your word on it that it's a block evading LTA. As content disruptive as the user can be, I really hesitate to create a LTA case page. -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I would be very much against making an LTA page (especially considering LTA pages are just... very bad in general). Besides, I can always pester you if I run into any issues in that area. :) Perryprog (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations, and welcome to the team. If there's anything I can help with or if you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. Around less right now, but always happy to help if anything comes up. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Rifleman's Creed
Hey, can you help expedite my https://www.armalite.com/ order? Asking for a me. El_C 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you want select fire or no? -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I want the fullest auto you have! El_C 00:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I recommend the M60 machine gun, sir. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I can go heavier. I am looking for something all-purpose. Might just go with GE's GAU-8 Avenger. It's only 600 lb unloaded and 4,000 lb fully loaded, easy peasy. El_C 01:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be interested in the ship mounted variant. Great for long voyages. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
for just now blocking that serial vandal - Mae West, Abigail Adams Smith, etc., etc. I was in the middle of filing a report when I saw your block. Shearonink (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate you
I will do my best to replace those citation needed parts on the Yandere Sim article. I'm still fairly new and am working on getting better sources, I won't use the sources you removed (although I assumed they were okay because they weren't in the "Unreliable sources" section, however, I appreciate you for not outright deleting everything. I'll try to find a better source ASAP. - MarkJames1989 (talk 00:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The unreliable source lists are simply lists that have been discussed before and denoted. The vast majority of sites on the internet will have not ever been explicitly checked, but are going to be unreliable. Look for less bloggy more established sites, with clear credentials, editing policies, etc. -- ferret (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, I appreciate the valuable advice and will continue to look for the most reliable sources I can find. - MarkJames1989 (talk 01:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)