User talk:Ferret/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

“Anti-vandalism”

Please stop removing content from Ninjago. Everything I posted there was true. It holds aspects of romance as well as political aspects. The whole series was based around a futuristic version of feudal Japan, showing extreme Japanese conservatism as a future possibility, thus forcing their belief on viewers. HeccingCommie (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@HeccingCommie: Your additions are unsourced and appeared to be vandalism. If you can provide sources for these genres, then use the talk page to present them. -- ferret (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

IceMario851

Hi, ferret. This is IceMario851 and I noticed that you deleted my changes on List of best-selling video game consoles, but the information was accurate, as seen here. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/04/nintendo-switch-hits-us-sales-record-during-black-friday-week.html

41,670,000 + 830,000 = 42,500,000

Please explain. IceMario851. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceMario851 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@IceMario851: I did explain. You made a change to the sales number without giving a source. Nor did you explain your edit in the edit notes for someone else to do the work for you. You MUST update the sourcing in articles, otherwise you will continue to be reverted and eventually blocked. -- ferret (talk) 12:40, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Questions About Screenshot Removal, Content Upload Process

Hello Ferret,

I am new fairly new to Wikipedia when it comes to adding content, so please excuse me for being unfamiliar with the Commons rules. Earlier I had uploaded two screenshots I had taken to the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive page. I assumed, incorrectly, that they would have been fine to upload and insert because they were my own screenshots, however, I saw that you had removed them due to being "Non-free content from Commons." I am just wondering what I did wrong in the content upload process and also what steps I can take in the future to avoid having content deleted again. Along with this, is there a way to resolve the issue regarding the removed content.

Thanks, nfeldNfeld (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nfeld: The most critical part here is to read WP:NFCC. This is the guiding policy for "non-free content" on Wikipedia, what some refer to as "fair use" for copyrighted or derivative works. Commons itself can only accept 100% freely licensed material, and derivative screenshots and videos of a copyrighted work are non-free. I've no opposition to an updated screenshot for the game, simply that the commons copy WILL be deleted so the edit had to be reverted. I do not think the menu screenshot is necessary though, as we do not typically show menus and it would fail the NFCC policy bullet #8. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

VBS and BISIM pages incident

Hello, i'm not in conflict interest as i'm not employed (nor wasn't) by BISIM nor linked to theirs VBS products

i just have the knowledge about subject and history covered in articles VBS1 VBS2 VBS3 Bohemia Interactive Simulations

i wrote the original articles in 2005 and later updated with the sources cited as it was requested later by wikipedia new policies

yet someone claims there are no sources listed, that's not true, where i could find sources, the links were included and put into cited/reference

please note the same person got denied speedy deletion of the VBS 1,2,3 article already by admins yet he still removed them and replaced with forward to wrong company — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarden (talk • contribs) 23:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dwarden: Lordtobi's edits are perfectly valid. As Goldenring noted in declining the speedy deletess, the criteria for a G11 speedy delete was not met. Goldenring concluded with saying that AFD was the next step, and that has now happened. You have a clear relationship with Bohemia Interactive that can be easily demonstrated, and that COI expands to all related companies and products, even if the company has since been spun off to be independent. Please do not edit anything remotely related to BI again. Nearly your entire history of edits is COI editing with BI products/organizations, and the only reason I haven't blocked you is that no one gave you any notice prior to mine. -- ferret (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q4 2019

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 11, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2019
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2019, the project has:

• 233 Featured Articles
• 83 Featured Lists
• 11 Featured Topics
• 1 Featured Portals

• 33 Featured Pictures
• 1,488 Good Articles
• 28 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Rare Replay GT postmortem
• Interview: Alexandra IDV

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

IP talk page abuse

Hello Ferret, hope all is well. Would it be possible to revoke talk page access for Special:Contributions/88.111.132.24? Looks like they are vandalizing their talk page after your block. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@LuK3 and Stwalkerster: Stwalkerster got it. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well F. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

History of video game consoles (ninth generation)

How I mainspace is a little different. I move the article from History of video game consoles (ninth generation) to Ninth generation of video game consoles to show in the history that the page was moved per other pages based on generations. Unfortunately, the latter page was salted which I was not aware. Anyways discussion opened on WP:VG I pinged you. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

For watcher, this is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Ninth_generation_of_video_game_consoles -- ferret (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

“Disruptive Comments?”

Why are these disruptive?

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@E Super Maker: I shouldn't need to explain this, seems like you've been around a while. Posting repeatedly to the Santa Claus talk page that he is real is disruptive and does not have anything to do with improving the article. Coupled with also making a similar edit to the article itself, which was also disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced

I thought you said the problem with that was that it was unsourced!

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my clipboard bugged. I’ll just leave that alone for now. No disruption intended. The link was supposed to go here. E Super Maker (😲 shout) 01:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism of Intellectual Giftedness

Hello, You have accused me of "Vandalising the article on Intellectual Giftedness". I have not done anything against the rules, and I am asking you to leave the changes that I made — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.200.214.164 (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

While on a second review I can see this is not vandalism, I do not think it is an improvement over the prior wording. The phrase "at their level" struck me oddly when I first reviewed and it sounded like slang. I stand by the revert, but my stated reason for reverting was wrong. -- ferret (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

185.200.214.164 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Ok, thnx for looking at it again and changing the reason. Now it's clearer.

Thank you for the understanding, apologies for the inappropriate warning. -- ferret (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Ferret, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 02:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはFerretたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 02:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Ferret: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 18:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Mass effect characters

Please do not remove primary characters from the list; their coverage is the entire purpose of the article. Googinber1234 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Full disclosure notice as required: I have reported both you and Izno in light of continuing reversion of basic content addition most recently committed by the latter. Googinber1234 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That's nice. You were told before these edits were made that sourcing was required. WP:V is a policy and you don't get to ignore it. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ferret!

Happy New Year!

Hello Ferret:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

GTA V

GTA V is the most financial successful product in history, not my opinion or bias.

Sources: https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/gta-5-now-profitable-entertainment-product-ever-3448487 https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/09/gta-v-profitable-entertainment-product-ever/ https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-04-09-gta-v-is-the-most-profitable-entertainment-product-of-all-time https://screenrant.com/gta-5-most-profitable-entertainment-product-ever/

Thank you! -- Acekard (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Acekard: Feel free to participate in the talk section I opened at the article. -- ferret (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

Why isn't trivia allowed? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@ColorfulSmoke: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of every detail and fact ever. The information was unsourced (See WP:V and WP:RS) as well. Trivia such as this simply isn't necessary for the reader to understand the topic, and we are not a game guide. See also WP:VGSCOPE, which covers things we do not do for video game articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you message.

I just wanted to thank you for that revert from here. I was confused why he reverted that because it came from a source that was reliable, so once again, thank you. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Zacharyalejandro

@Zacharyalejandro: I actually blocked him. All his edits are vandalism/nonsense/blanking. -- ferret (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Band Page

Dear Ferret,

Your removal of my edit renders information incorrect. You cited my source as not being credible. If you examine the Genius page, it shows the official version of Year Zero's lyrics. I look forward to having this change reverted to how I wrote it, which is right if you examine the vinyl back or the art of Infestissumam. Here is a link to help with that: https://www.nocleansinging.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ghost-Year-Zero.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotScottRogowsky (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@NotScottRogowsky: The Genius page is still an unreliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia to prove information. See WP:USERG, it applies to any site that relies on user submitted content, as Genius clearly does. The way you phrased it was also not really an appropriate wording for the encyclopedia. Either way, I believe this is moot: Instead of worrying about this one troublesome lyric and people continuing to fight over it, I've adjust the quote to simply not mention it. -- ferret (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Witcher 3 Ending

Dear Ferret

The article on the Witcher 3 wild hunt has misleading information about one of the possible endings where Ciri Disappears. This is exactly what is said at the end of game: "As for Ciri? That's hard to say. Since the events on Undvik, she has yet to be seen". You can verify the exact wordings of the game endings at this link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MJXAyNNXaM. So, the game never said Ciri is dead. The game simply said she disappeared. Only Geralt said she is dead and Geralt has been wrong about Ciri a couple of times. He also once said that Ciri is Uma. And he also presumed her to be dead when he first saw her in the hut at the Isle of Mists.

Also as far as Geralt's ultimate fate is concerned it would be wrong to assume that his fate is unknown. Geralt survives at the end of any game ending which is a fact because he reappears in Blood and Wine DLC events which chronologically take place after the main game events. The story of blood and wine is based upon the endings of the main game. People who die (or disappear) in the main game do not show up in the blood and wine dlc. CIRI for example doesn't show up in the blood And wine dlc if she is gone at the main game ending. However, Geralt is there healthy and alive. There are other numerous examples which lead to conclude that the story of blood and wine is tightly based upon the story of main game. For example, don't help Priscilla in the main game and then talk to dandelion in the blood and wine. He will tell you that she is physically hurt. People who got hurt in the main game remained hurt in the blood and wine. Similarly people who died or disappeared in the main game do not just magically reappear in the blood and wine. This is what I love about this game. The story of the entire game (including all the dlcs) makes sense and is highly coherent. There are no loose ends here in this game and CDPR has taken special care of this.

I thank you for your contributions to this wonderful encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn867 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Roblox

Given the issue there over the shutdown rumors, you wouldn't mind adding a warning on the talk page there, wouldn't you? ミラP 23:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: The archived section will stay up for a while, may be enough. The weird part is they only started posting about it recently but the hoax article that started the rumors is nearly a year old now. -- ferret (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Eventually they'll keep doing it for years, then you can add the warning. ミラP 23:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Switch

I made changes to the Nintendo video game consoles article and they were very constructive. I do not know why you are giving me a hard time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:244:5500:6B16:B3:CECF:79DF:F61 (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the edits are not constructive or backed by sourcing. You removed valid content and made incorrect statements such as the Switch being Nintendo's first console in the generation. The hybrid nature doesn't play a part here, it's the second console that can be a home console. -- ferret (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Hello Ferret, hope all is well. I just had a quick question - do you think I qualify for Rollback rights? I spend most of my time on political journalism articles in the mainspace and often see vandalism that could (and I suppose, in my fallible opinion, should) be rollbacked. It would be nice to help. JamesMatthews01 (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@JamesMatthews01: I do not have time at the moment to deep dive as proper for the rollback right, but my suggestion is that you go to Preferences->Gadgets and enable Twinkle. Twinkle has a form of rollback that anyone can use, and it has additional features such as automatically opening the talk page of the user you reverted and helping you post warnings and such. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

At this time I decline to grant rollback. Since the request, you've made no edits, so it doesn't seem you have a need for the tool at this time and aren't involved in patrolling currently. I still suggest Twinkle, as it is superior in many ways for patrol work. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Can you block Special:Contributions/74.89.57.202? This editor is disruptively bloating the "starring" parameter in film infoboxes against the instructions in {{infobox film}}. We restrict the "starring" parameter to just the film poster's billing block to keep the infobox from dominating the article. This has been explained rather clearly on the IP editor's talk page several times, but the IP is repeatedly adding random people to infoboxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate:  Done Guessing you felt INVOLVED. -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reverting him across quite a few articles. Probably going to have to look at a bunch of posters and clean up the latest edits, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. The IP went back to doing it again as soon as the block ended. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Reblocked. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Sony Interactive / Computer Entertainment

Hello Ferret! You reverted an anonymous edit on Playstation 2, but I think you overlooked the fact that Sony Interactive Entertainment is the successor of Sony Computer Entertainment and not two names for the same company. If you want to read about Sony Computer Entertainment, you'd still look in Sony Interactive Entertainment, but it's not exactly the same. SIE didn't exist until 2016, and the Playstation 2 was released in 2000. It can therefore not have been developed by SIE, even if it would mean exactly the same individual people. Don't you agree? Digital Brains (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Digital Brains: I linked to two guidelines, WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. We try to avoid pipes and we don't replace redirects with their target for no reason. Redirects are fine and should be used. -- ferret (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Argh, not enough sleep. I read it the wrong way around. I thought the IP user had changed Sony Interactive Entertainment to Sony Computer Entertainment, but they just replaced the redirect as you say. In other words, I thought it used to say that Sony Interactive Entertainment was the developer and that the IP user changed that to SCE, which in my eyes would be correct. Sorry for taking your time, I'll go inbibe some caffeine now (not kidding, I was just about to). Digital Brains (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Digital Brains: No problem! -- ferret (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Toio and SIE

The platform was released by Sony Interactive Entertainment, which is the PlayStation division. It's not branded as a PlayStation product, but it shares common lineage and is promoted with PlayStation properties. I think it deserves to be in the "related" section.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't realize there was a Sony Interactive Entertainment template. It belongs there.Damnedfan1234 (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Unknown User

Can you block user 2001:18C0:61C:700:A96A:AAA7:3688:1448? He has been making a lot of excessive and unnecessary edits to the Dragon 2 article and numerous other "space" related articles. He also has been ignoring our warnings when his edits are undid or reverted and seems to be editing the articles based on his personal preferences or like long running documentaries. Check his/her contributions history for more information. Also how do you gain the ability to "revert" edits and block users?--Killamin7 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the IP. Anyone can revert edits. You might try enabling Twinkle to make it easier. Go to Preferences, Gadgets, and enable it there. Blocking requires being an admin, read WP:RFA but understand it's not easy to get. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Killamin7: I blocked for disruption for 72 hours to start, on the /64 range: Special:Contributions/2001:18C0:61C:700:0:0:0:0/64 -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks!! I gave the Twinkle feature a try and fixed a few of the articles the IP modified.--Killamin7 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Killamin7: Checking back as the block is up and user is on the same edits. Any improvement? -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Not quite. He switched from this IP to this one and made a couple of changes on some of the previous articles where his edits were reverted. Apparently he didn't see that his ban was for only 72 hours and switched literally after the ban or he's trying to evade detection. Though he did reply to me with the impression that someone else told me to undo his edits. He insisted that one of his changes was correct and acknowledged that he made a mistake removing sources. I undid one of his latest edits (under the new IP) on the Dragon 2 article because he removed a source for no reason while Jrcraft YT undid another one because it contradicted the reference. I also checked the articles he made changes on and the times, time zones, and conversions were changed, and he left no explanation or reference for the changes. Also a lot of the changes he made seemed unnecessary (check the Discoverer 20 article). I'll let you be the judge...--Killamin7 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Killamin7: Not deliberate evasion, IPv6 like this changes on it's own and is outside the control of the user. That's why I blocked the range before. I'm not overly familiar with this topic area so I don't know whether his edits are in line with local project MOS, etc. I do see cases of capitalization changes like Argon to ARGON (which redirects to Argon)... -- ferret (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: @Killamin7: Thank you for your help on this, I've been watching pages he continually edits on and making sure the pages stay in a healthy state. (IP) --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent reverted edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:RS has been more than adequately explained, there's nothing further to discuss here. Misapplication of WP:PRIMARY is simply wrong. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

---

You recently reverted the edit I made on the page for Getting Over It. While I do realize that YouTube is not normally considered a reliable source, my edit was about a YouTuber’s criticism of the game, and that YouTube video IS the criticism of the game.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples states that “However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed”. This is videogamedunkey’s official channel, and is therefore considered a primary source.

Therefore, I have reinstated my edit, and request you to not remove it again. Sam1370 (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: No, videogamedunkey is not a primary source for Getting Over It, and as a secondary source, is unreliable. Additionally, you are linking Wikipedia as the source, which is not allowed (WP:USERG). Please do not do this again. Not every youtuber and blogger with an opinion is suitable for Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@ferret Videogamedunkey’s criticism is not a primary source for Getting Over It, I am aware of that. I stated that it is a primary source for his criticism. In my edit, I described his criticism, using his criticism as a primary source.

I’m not sure what you mean by me citing Wikipedia, seeing as this conversation originated from me citing YouTube. If you mean the edit in which I reinstated my previous, that was an accident that came from me reinstating it by copying the source of the previous one. Somehow it got jumbled up, and I fixed the citation in an edit a few minutes later.

I recognize that not every YouTuber should be included in an article. However, given that his criticism sparked vandalism of the article by his fans, I think it is fairly relevant. I do concede that I should have included this vandalism part in my edit, as the information does seem a bit random otherwise.

Really, this is no different than editing an article to include a description of an opinion piece written in a newspaper by a person who disliked a product. I’m not sure why this is somehow not allowed and that is.

Thus, I request permission to reinstate my edit. I will include a description of the vandalism, citing the Wikipedia talk page, which should be considered a primary source in this situation. I will keep the YouTube citation, because as I said earlier it is considered a primary source in this situation.

Good day to you, and I await your reply. Sam1370 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Permission denied. I can also confirm that this not an appropriate source for Wikipedia. If you take the time to learn more about the website, you’ll come to see that it’s not even really a close call. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: Videogamedunkey can only be a primary source in relation to himself, not anyone else or any other topics. For the topic of "Getting Over It", Videogamedunkey is a secondary source (i.e. he is secondary from Getting Over It). Bennett Foddy would be a primary source in relation to Getting Over It, but Videogamedunkey is not. Wikipedia is never a suitable source. That he made a video and some of his fans did vandalism because of it is not suitable for including on Wikipedia unless a reliable secondary source took note and covered it. None did that I'm aware of. @Masem: Courtesy ping. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

And to further add: Dunkey's reviews are known to be sarcastic. It is impossible to make a fair judgement of what he actually thinks of a game from the review (the exceptions being Knack and SMB2). But its first and foremost, he's barely just a random person on the Internet giving a review, rather than an organization that the industry has come to recognize as a fair review source. --Masem (t) 02:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: It would be nice if you provided reasoning or evidence for your argument instead of simply denying my request. If you aren’t going to do that, you really aren’t adding anything to the discussion.

@ferret I see what you mean. But even then, the video can still be considered a secondary source, no different that an opinion piece written by someone. In this situation, it makes no difference whether it is a reliable source, as it is merely being summarized and not being used as a source of accurate information.

I made a typo earlier; I said “Wikipedia talk page”, I meant to say “Wikipedia page history”. I see no reason why the page history of a Wikipedia page should not be considered a reliable, primary source, as it contains an accurate record created over time of the edits made to the page.

And why is this not suitable for inclusion unless a secondary source has covered it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that anything is suitable for inclusion into a Wikipedia page, so long as it has a source, be it primary or secondary. It is an interesting tidbit of information that is relevant to the topic, so why is it being excluded simply because no well-known source has covered it?

@Masem It doesn’t matter what he actually thinks of it, however, because he did criticize the game in his video, whether he meant it or not, and this criticism is what spurred his fans to vandalize the page.

I understand that he is simply a random person if you just consider just his review, but my proposed edit’s main point is his review causing people to vandalize the page, where he is relevant, and where it does not matter if the review is a fair one or not.

Thank you for replying so quickly, I will check my notifications more often in future. Sam1370 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: I'm not sure how to reiterate our points again, so just let me be clear: All secondary sources must be reliable, or they cannot be used on Wikipedia, period. Videogamedunkey is not a reliable source, just a random youtuber/blogger of which there are millions. We do not include opinions/reviews from unreliable sources. You can read WP:RS for more information. Read WP:USERG as to why Wikipedia, and any wiki or user-submitted site, is considered inherently unreliable for our purposes. No reliable sources took note of the vandalism, so we don't include it... -- ferret (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sam1370 - Ferret has broken things down as simply as I could. I’d just be writing the same thing he’s just written out to you multiple times now. And Wikipedia operates on the concept of WP:CONSENSUS, so you’re incorrect to say that it’s not helpful to chime in to say you’re wrong. I’m establishing that multiple editors disagree with your stance. And you continuing to add the content against the will of multiple editors is against policy. So it’s letting you know that you need to stop. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@ferret All secondary sources do not have to be reliable, as stated in WP:SELFSOURCE, where self-published sources are allowed to be sources of information about themselves, which is exactly what I am using this for, my edit including a part where I summarize the review.

I understand that Wikipedia articles and other articles of that type are considered to be unreliable because it is user-generated content, but page histories are not user-generated, but an accurate record of the edits made to the user-generated content, so as I stated earlier, there is no reason to not consider it a reliable, primary source of the edits made to the page.

Even if you do consider the page history unreliable, the principle of WP:SELFSOURCE can still be applied, as questionable sources can still be used as sources of information about themselves.

@Sergecross73 WP:CONSENSUS states that “Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), *neither is it the result of a vote*.” Adding your opinion, without any reasoning, is nothing more than putting in your vote, and is therefore unhelpful.

WP:CONSENSUS also states that when consensus is difficult to reach, a third opinion can be considered. The page on third opinions states: “Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.”

In this case, you have provided your vote along with no reasoning to back it up, therefore violating both the principles of WP:CONSENSUS as well as the Wikipedian third opinion.

You are also wrong when you state that “you continuing to add the content against the will of multiple editors is against policy. So it’s letting you know that you need to stop.” One, I did not continue to add the content, I added it once after my original talk page posting. There is no need for me to “stop”, since it was never an ongoing thing in the first place. Two, I did not add it against the will of multiple editors, I added it against the will of ferret, the person who removed my edit in the first place, because I had assumed the argument would end with my first edit anyway. Sam1370 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: I'm not going to reply again after this, so last time re-stating this: Videogamedunkey is a primary source on the topic of Videogamedunkey, and that's it, nothing else. The article Videogamedunkey is the only place where Videogamedunkey is a PRIMARY source. Primary and secondary refer to whether the source is the topic itself or not. Videogamedunkey is NOT a primary source about Getting Over It, period. This applies to the talk page as well, even if USERG wasn't in the picture. Videogamedunkey and Wikipedia are NOT Bennett Foddy, therefore they are SECONDARY source to the topic. As such, they must be reliable sources in their own right to be used, and they are not. Finally, this has been explained to you by three separate editors, all of whom are administrators well versed in the policy here. Time to drop the stick. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopening of previous discussion + accusations of administrator misconduct

Firstly, I would like to reopen the previous discussion, as I believe it has been unfairly closed. I had many arguments for my viewpoint, some of which were ignored by you, notably the one in which I discuss how WP:SELFSOURCE relates to my argument. In regards to WP:DROPTHESTICK, the debate has not died a natural death, you are unnaturally ending it by closing the discussion when I still have many valid arguments for my point. Your viewpoint has not been explained to me by three separate editors, it has been explained to me by two, the third merely providing his "vote" in your favor. Regardless, this is irrelevant, as WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus is not attained by voting, but by "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns".

I will therefore restate clearly my edit request, taking into account changes on my viewpoint throughout the discussion, and the following defense against your main argument for its removal: I wish to make an edit appended to the first paragraph of the Reception section in the page for Getting Over It. The edit's main point will summarize the vandalism made to the page by fans of the YouTuber videogamedunkey. It could include a summary of videogamedunkey's review, or it could simply describe it as "critical". Two primary sources will be cited: one, the YouTube video of videogamedunkey's review; two, the Wikipedia talk page, or an archive.org snapshot of it.

You stated in your last response "Primary and secondary refer to whether the source is the topic itself or not. Videogamedunkey is NOT a primary source about Getting Over It, period. This applies to the talk page as well, even if USERG wasn't in the picture. Videogamedunkey and Wikipedia are NOT Bennett Foddy, therefore they are SECONDARY source to the topic. As such, they must be reliable sources in their own right to be used, and they are not":

In my edit, I am summarizing the YouTube video and the Wikipedia talk page. I am not using them in order to provide information about Getting Over It, I am using them to provide information about themselves. Therefore, the topic is not Getting Over It, but videogamedunkey's review and the vandalism that occurred on the Wikipedia talk page. Therefore, they are both primary sources.

Even if we consider them as secondary sources, they still do not have to be reliable, as I previously stated in my argument. WP:SELFSOURCE states clearly that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The only thing I am including in my edit is a summary of the YouTube video and a summary of the edits made to the page. They are not providing information about any other thing but themselves, and thus WP:SELFSOURCE applies here. The sources are entirely valid, and there is no reason why this edit should not be allowed to be added.

Secondly, I am accusing you of administrator misconduct. WP:INVOLVED states that "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." You were involved in this dispute, but you used your administrative powers to close the discussion, a blatant violation of this Wikipedia policy. You claim there is "nothing further to discuss here". If there was nothing further to discuss, I would not be arguing my point in the discussion. This is nothing more than you misusing your administrative powers in order to silence my arguments.

I await your response.

Sam1370 (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: You are not allowed to "summarize" primary sources yourself, that is original research. SELFSOURCE only applies to primary sources, not secondary sources. By the very definition, a SELFSOURCE cannot be secondary. These sources aren't giving information about themselves, but about the topic of Getting Over It. I see no reason to engage further on this topic when you refuse to listen to policy explanations from experienced editors. Closing a discussion is not an administrative power. And closing a discussion on my own talk page is always allowed. Please do not post to my talk page again. If you re-instate your edits to Getting Over It, you WILL be blocked for disruption. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Finally, thank you for responding to instead of ignoring my argument. (However, you did ignore my argument about you ignoring mine, not even mentioning your mistake in your response). I understand your original research argument, and I cease my edit request. However, there are still a few things I would like to say. Firstly, I did not “refuse to listen” to your explanations. In reality, I took into account these explanations and presented back to you an argument that contained why I believed you were incorrect. Second, I see how closing a discussion is not an administrative power, but you are still attempting to silence my viewpoint by closing the discussion and by requesting me to not reply anymore. You may believe you are correct, but that does not give you the right to silence any future evidence that might prove you wrong. Lastly, while closing a discussion is not a misuse of administrator powers, blocking someone for doing something that you were in a dispute with them about certainly is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Thank you for responding, and I hope you take my points into consideration. Sam1370 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Columns

Could I get the code to make a multi columned list as is visible on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Multi-column_templates. The wiki page doesn't help with what I want but I wanty to make a list with 3 columns.Hydra 24536 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

False statement + more info

I was an alpha tester. I am the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.224.64.242 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) That is not how Wikipedia works. You cannot just say “you’re the source” or everyone would say that all the time to win arguments. You need a way of verifying the content beyond “because I say so”. Sergecross73 msg me 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time typing that out and editing it. Sorry I tried to contribute. Everything I said was correct. You cant cite a source in alpha testing because it would violate the sources NDA. That's why I posted basic information instead of specifics. People need to know about this game. Moderate if you want but my intentions were good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.224.64.242 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

If there's no reliable secondary coverage because of NDAs, then Wikipedia simply can't cover it. No one is saying your intention is bad, just that it can't be on Wikipedia without proper sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t say anything in judgement of you, I just told you that you can’t be your own source when contributing to Wikipedia. That said, regardless of Wikipedia policy, you shouldn’t be writing anything that you’re under an NDA for. Sergecross73 msg me 02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Bobherry has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for helping me on the discord server since I returned from my retirement! Bobherry Talk Edits 22:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Dear Ferret

This user User:อัลเบิร์ is trying to make an edit war and I explain about the Wikipedia policy to him but I argue to block anyone who blames to edit in content that this user only thinks he is true. No one can edit on the page that the user was overseer. I need you to tell him to understand the rule and don't make another misunderstanding in Wikipedia rule, especially I need you to BLOCK him to resolve the problem that this user make.

Thank You Ministerboy (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you, Ministerboy, the IP that are constantly making reverts on those pages? If you are, I believe that you are the one that are violating the rules and try to put your faults into the other's hand. The other user is asking for a discuss with you but you don't do it. Your version of edits cannot be accepted because it came later and the other user is not consenting with you. So you have to discuss first but you choose not to do it and instead, committed warring edit violation. อัลเบิร์ (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:อัลเบิร์ That another IP is my friend that sits behind me, I work for Wikipedia Thai football for 4 Year and I was work for Thai FA for 2 years until now. Why you delete the honor content of every Thai team and why you delete the history of every Thai team. All the information I find with my ability with my Wikipedia user friend for 4 year and you came here to delete and tell me to talk with you first. That was absurd and can't accept. STOP doing this action for the better way of finding the information from Wikipedia. Ministerboy (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

For the talk page watchers: I've blocked all three editors 24 hours for edit warring across 4 separate articles: อัลเบิร์, Ministerboy and 2001:FB1:56:1F61:0:0:0:0/64. All 3 are advised to re-read WP:3RR and WP:BRD before making any further edits to these articles. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Bishonen, and Yamla: I noticed there's now a semiprot for sockpuppetry on one of these 4 articles, Thailand national football team, and a recent checkuser block on Peerapong097, another editor working this area. Just pinging in case something deeper than my edit war blocks is necessary. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

อัลเบิร์ is a sock of Albertpda (talk · contribs · count). Ministerboy has their own set of problems. I suggest you keep an eye on them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

John Arena COI edits

Following up on your earlier request on RPP, letting you know: John Arena was sanitized again, this time by a named editor who has already been blocked. Thanks BubbaJoe123456 for jumping on it. It seems that the individual is persistent and has learned the value of creating a username, but not long enough to be auto-confirmed. What do you think? Also, from his behavior, Jim Gardiner (Chicago politician) might be subject to protection, although in this case he was adding sourced but POV-termed accusations. David Brooks (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: Both 3 month semi for sockpuppetry. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: If willing, would you quickcheck: Honestandreal1, AldJimGardiner, Jimmydastalker and Truthbetold1475 I know you can't comment on IPs but 12.109.241.226 may be of interest. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Less likely to be evidence, but some of the edits in question have come from semi-randomized IPV6 AT&T addresses in Redmond, WA. David Brooks (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Truthbetold1475 has an alt account, Truthbetold14. Honestandreal1 seems  Possible to that account. AldJimGardiner created a new account after being soft blocked, Chicagousername. I guess it's possible that these accounts are related to someone, but I doubt it – AldJim/Chicagousername are on a different ISP than anyone else. Jimmydastalker also seems kind of unlikely to anyone else. My gut feeling from looking at the CU data is that this isn't a sock farm. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Appreciated. I skipped Chicagousername since they had reverted Honestandreal1. Seems like multiple people operating here, hopefully semiprot will be enough for a while. -- ferret (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry!

Fixing it now Scaledish (scaled.netlify.com) (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussing about Trials of Mana → Seiken Densetsu 3 move

Hi Ferret, I'm 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) 10:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Problematic IP

Hi! I saw you block Special:Contributions/93.159.199.196 and mention Special:Contributions/217.73.129.106, which is back. Thought it would be quickest if you handle it rather than making ARV/SPI for now. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Blocked a year this time, clearly static and same user. Please clean up if you can :) Unfortunately he operates on 2-3 ranges, I believe my range block is still in effect on his primary range. -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Also reblocked Special:Contributions/109.69.160.128, but I do not have time to review, much longer spree of unsourced nonsense about demons and gods. -- ferret (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Cheers! I only ever noticed this because a DPL bot put a tag on a DAB page caused by the IPs broken page linking. I've never encountered them before or have any of the pages watched. So no promises about actually going through the edits, haha. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: I only found this myself because the user touched a Diablo video game article on my watchlist during one of their "demon fancruft" sprees, which lead me to the mess they were making of List of Diablo characters, and then further down the rabbit hole. I don't have the willpower or time to sort through the mess they make of comic book character articles... -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Insight regarding WP:VG section

Hi, sorry for causing a stir on the WP:VG talk page, it's been a bit of a journey, but since you're an admin I figured it would be beneficial to get some insight into how I could have handled that section better. I don't expect you to comb over the chaos that is the Star Citizen talk page discussion itself, I'm trying to look through it and see what I could've done differently, but some outside perspective on my posts within the WPVG page would be helpful in the context of policy would be helpful, especially since I'd like to be more active in the VG space and adhere to best practices a little better. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 19:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Seadoubleyoujay: I wouldn't worry too much. WT:VG and ANI both show that other editors disagree that this was canvassing (Or seen a different way, "disallowed" canvassing). The important thing to remember when approaching projects or noticeboards about an existing discussion is to try not to write it in a way that suggests how participants should "vote". Just tell them where the discussion is and the basics of what it's about. Of course, be mindful that the project or noticeboard you approach has some reason to be interested as well. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it! — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 19:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Re my recent block regarding actions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Since we clearly aren't going to agree over the appropriateness of everything that occurred there (or in the ANI thread), since you are the one with the admin bits, and since I'm willing to admit I was somewhat hot-headed in my reactions and that accordingly regardless of whether anyone at else was at fault I could have done things a lot better myself, I'm going to write this block off to experience. And restate what I said earlier - that having encountered you previously on the Star Citizen talk page, I had considered you a source of common-sense. And given your common sense (which I'd assume is also displayed more generally), I'd like to ask for some advice. Would it be acceptable for me to post a (non-hidden) comment on the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games to the effect that I held an alternative view on the debate, that I felt that some of the points made by seadoubleyoujay were open to alternative interpretations, and that I would consider it more appropriate for people to decide the merits of the issue after seeing other perspectives offered at the forthcoming RfC? I don't think that is unreasonable, but I'm willing to let it be if you can't agree.

Beyond that, I think it likely that any RfC on the proposed split is likely to be delayed somewhat, per comments at Talk:Star Citizen#Major article edits. We should probably sort the main article out first (we all agree it needs work), and worry about any split later . If a time comes for an RfC (I'd guess it is weeks off), and I'm the one to propose it, I shall check the wording with you first, if you are ok with that? 109.159.72.250 (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot ping IPs, but assume you'll check back later. If you want to leave a summary of your position at WT:VG, feel free. I would focus on simply stating your general position as a response, rather than making a point by point rebuttal of Seadoubleyoujay. Don't make your post about what he said, just state your position and let people read between the two as they will. Either way, you might want to consider simply giving the seasoned members of WP:VG a little credit. We aren't so easily swayed as you might assume, and my quick scan of the split discussion showed most editors stating a "wait for now" position. -- ferret (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of video games considered the worst

A mess of an article I would say. References with missing titles for both Spyro and Game Party articles, red links to non-existent references and a prose problem on the lead. Espngeek (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Espngeek: You're right, it did have a bunch CS1 errors, all of which I just fixed. If you simply start removing reference labels and large sections of otherwise sourced material, without any explanation or edit notes, expect it to be treated as disruption. It hardly took any time at all to check the game articles for the contents of the missing references. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q1 2020

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 12, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2020
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2020, the project has:

• 233 Featured Articles
• 84 Featured Lists
• 10 Featured Topics

• 33 Featured Pictures
• 1,522 Good Articles
• 28 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: High-Level Article trends in the past decade or two
• Interview: Zxcvbnm

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered ~~~~~)

Regional At Best and Draft:Regional At Best

A draft has been submitted to Articles for Creation on Draft:Regional At Best. In article space, Regional At Best redirects to the band, Twenty One Pilots. The history shows that there has previously been an article, and that it has been stubbed down to a redirect, and that you salted it on 22 February 2019 with the following diffs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_At_Best&type=revision&diff=884578502&oldid=884575458&diffmode=source and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Regional_At_Best&type=revision&diff=884578648&oldid=884578502&diffmode=source . My question is what the AFD was and where the AFD is. (These album draft requests and redirects can be very contentious.) I would like to be able to point the submitter at the AFD. I realize that this was a year ago, and you might not remember exactly what happened. Any information will be appreciated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best. I think that I have this, although any additional information will be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if you or User:Sandstein or User:Winged Blades of Godric get asked about it in the next few days. These band-album-track debates can be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I remember the case. There were several salts as fans kept trying to make the article at different titles. See also Regional at Best (lowercase at), which is likely the proper title and has a much more extensive history. As well as Regional at Best (album) -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, they can ask you or Sandstein or Godric to unsalt it, and you will probably say no. They can take it to Deletion Review, but I won't advise that. (I have been rebuked for advising that stuff be taken to DRV.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is a throw-away comment about a throw-away account. The editor who submitted the draft that I declined has made exactly three edits, which were to submit that draft. I am inclined to suspect suckpoppetry, but I don't have enough evidence to file a report or to request CheckUser. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There is a sockpuppet who operated in this area, but I haven't spotted them in quite a long time. There were many low-activity accounts involved in the past articles that remain unblocked, so I'd cautiously lean towards a more meat-puppetry angle. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nacionality

Hello, I know that I am only one IP address. I would like to advise you about the user Kingsif, who manipulate the nationalities of several people. That user replaces the spanish nationality by others that are not valid (regions like Catalonia or Valencia) because these user has a catalan independence ideology. I would like to warn the user of non-compliance with the rules and that will be restored to the articles referred to above, the Spanish nationality. Also note that the user in bad faith i falsely denounced to provoke me locking a day in wikipedia.

If you tolerate that people with Spanish nationality appear in the articles with the nationality of their regions it's the same like if you're English the nationality of Churchill is "South East England" instead of Britain. Or if you are American, is the same as the nationality of Obama is Hawaiian instead of American.

No article of a spanish famous (of the most guarded by users) comes another nationality other than the Spanish (and the same with the rest of the nations of the world). 79.109.111.97 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Doom 2016 addition

Hi, I noticed you deleted my statement on DOOM 2016 being a sequel, what I meant was that in DOOM eternal there is a cutscene which reveals that DOOM 2016 and eternal are sequels to the original games. The clip is on YouTube if you look it up. I just wanted to clear this up, thanks! Dougdapug1234 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop adding unsourced original research with improper grammar. No, a youtube video is not a sufficient source and its speculation to assume that a cutscene proves the games are direct sequels when sourcing still says the 2016 game was a reboot. -- ferret (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s literally in the game. I’m sure anyone who has played eternal will agree that it clearly states it is a sequel. Please play a game and THEN correct the wiki page. That’s how your supposed to do it. Dougdapug1234 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Also my “original research” comes from the game, not YouTube. I was saying that you should go to YouTube because you clearly have not played eternal or you would agree with what I’m saying. Please do actual research before editing. Dougdapug1234 (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Dougpapug1234: I've played the game and seen the cutscenes, no, they do not prove that the games are direct sequels and not reboots (as has been stated by reliable sources). Please, do not add this again. If you do, there is a chance you'll be blocked for disruption. You are free to use the article's talk page to argue your case, but otherwise WP:BRD applies. You made a change, it's been reverted, now you need to open a discussion and prove your case. "Play the game then edit wiki" is absolutely NOT how you're suppose to do it. Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say, not our own interpretations.-- ferret (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Editing

Dear Ferret,

I was editing it because it's old Youtube channel merged with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare.

From, Ghost Gulag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Gulag (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ghost Gulag: Please don't expect me to believe that you thought COD: Warzone was a "old Youtube channel". Do not disruptively merge the article again. -- ferret (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It was when the game mode first came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Gulag (talk • contribs) 16:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ferret what games do you play like Call of Duty?

From, Ghost Gulag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost Gulag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Team Fortress mod

Hi Ferret,

I'm zel, I'm a software developer and have been working on the FortressOne project for a number of years. I believe the original Team Fortress modification for Quake is an important piece of gaming and internet history and deserves its own page.

I appreciate the page I created was barebones but I intend on growing it - is there any particular reason you are against the idea of it having its own page?

Thanks, zel— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drzel1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drzel1: Articles on Wikipedia must have notability, a guideline that drive what we include on the site. The short version is at WP:GNG. Notability is proven by using reliable secondary sourcing that discusses the topic in-depth. I promise you, I have nothing against there being a Team Fortress mod article if it was viable, however over many many years, enough sourcing just hasn't been found to create the article. It doesn't lack an article because nobody wants there to be one, but because we can't find enough sourcing for it to pass WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Ferret,

That makes a lot of sense. I have a decent collection of secondary sources. I'll see if I can put something together.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. Drzel1 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SammyKane

Hi, I'm inclined to unblock User talk:SammyKane based on their current unblock request, on the condition that they refrain from using Sound Vapors as a source in the future. They seem to understand why they've been blocked and appear willing to avoid the behavior that got them blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: Hey, if you're good with it, no opposition. However I'm still a little suspicious of a direct COI considering the entirety of their editing is adding links to Sound Vapors or creating articles for the site and it's creator. Literally no other editing, not even a basic typo correction or two. -- ferret (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, it's definitely a little odd that every edit has included Sound Vapors in some fashion. But they've denied any conflict of interest, and I'm willing to give them another chance if they accept the conditions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Elder scroll oblivion , Skyrim , and , Morrowind should be added to the dark fantasy role playing games

Hi ,

Can you please to add the Elder scroll oblivion , morrowind , and skyrim pages to the dark fantasy categories due to these RPG are dark fanstasy games ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneuser12 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Oneuser12: No, because they aren't. Same as you were told back in August. -- ferret (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The recurring theme of the Elder scroll game is free will and survival within its universe. so I break it down into categories why elder scroll should consider as "Dark and gritty "

Doom and gloom,

Within the elder scroll games Morrowind, oblivion and Skyrim environment structure has this malevolent threat that the world is coming to end by apocalyptic force manifest by supernatural forces or predestined prophecies that involves malevolent beings or an antagonistic army, false gods and denizens to invade and Tamriel, these themes heavily reflect different religious and pagans views within Tamriel, basically, the original game themes reflect Gnosticism over doom and gloom.

Mysteria and suspense,

As the original games have lore contradictions that are supported by the Unreliable narrator viewpoint (you as the player) The mysteries of each game are present in shock suspenseful way and the majority has is portray as somber atmosphere over it. All three games feature a sinister mysteries around the themes of the games, the world is going to end and up to you stand to stop it.

Dark fantasy tropes within Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim, the originals game is very similar to witcher and dark souls type of darkness and suspenseful.The Examples dark fantasy tropes within the elder scrolls : 1. assassinations, 2. slavery, 3. murder, Theft 4. racism between men and elves. 5. War, 6. torture people 7. Necromancers and necrophilia 8. brooding atmosphere and gothic tones. 9. apocalyptic threats like Deadra invasion and dragons destroying the world, 10. Vampires and undead blocking the sun for total domination. 11. Within the themes, Oblivion, Morrowind, Skyrim, Beastfolk are very few in numbers and considers unworthy animals by humans and elves. 12. Religious conflicting false prophets and gods. 13. Graves robbing and mutilation of corpses 14. Deadric Invasions 15. Dark brotherhood assassinations 16. Moral Ambiguity

 Mature and violence 

The game has a mature rating for the themes, violence, and depictions of spike heads, bodies, and corpse. Decapitations and impalements of bodies within feudal Dark medieval society. The games Morrowind, oblivion, and Skyrim has a dark fantasy approach intended for adults, as for ESO is very high fantasy compare to its cousins and while the main series had a dark and gritty setting. As I am very aware of the dark mature themes within elder scroll Morrowind, oblivion, and Skyrim. They are both of excellent examples of high and dark fantasies style combined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneuser12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is all original research. You've yet to supply a single reliable source that supports the label "dark fantasy." Wikipedia is built on what reliable sources say, not our personal research or opinions about something. -- ferret (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I add thereliable sources . The research that is hightlight within are the games rated as mature by esrb ratings uk for violence, sexual themes, drug use, blood and gore. Pretty dark material within dark/high fanstasy game.

Thanks

Link:https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34618/The+Elder+Scrolls+V%3A+Skyrim+Special+Edition/ Oneuser12 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This quote was stated by Todd Howard that support the dark nature of the elder scroll's world in the Interview: Todd Howard On The Scope, Vision Of Skyrim

"As far as Skyrim, what is the experience? It's the experience you had with the other Elder Scrolls, in that you be who you want to be and do what you want, but the tone of Skyrim involves a more rugged world, a more lived-in world, where magic is more low-fantasy world. There is more violence in it, not for gore's sake -- there's not a ton of gore in the game -- but it just seems like it would be a more violent place." Todd Howard Interview: Todd Howard On The Scope, Vision Of Skyrim July 7, 2011 |

Link https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/125801/Interview_Todd_Howard_On_The_Scope_Vision_Of_Skyrim.php Oneuser12 (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So one quote, about one game, suggesting it's a little more low-fantasy and a little more violent, but not gore and never says "dark". -- ferret (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There much more references I can provide that can support the elder scroll as a dark fanstasy , but you just want hear the tag line "dark Fanstasy " as a reliable source. So this is why universities and educational facilities has policies not using Wikipedia because subjective . I ask please Stop giving warnings or threats actions on very small changes with articles.

I guess putting a sword through someone head is not class as not dark enough as a feature within game and other unpleasant material that feature with the game.

The elder scroll is reconigise as a dark fantasy within subject studies English literature and game development from university of Manchester and game articles has highlighted the dark mature contents material that support this elder scroll as a dark fanstasy. This conversation is now over

Oneuser12 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Oneuser12: "Violence" does not make a particular work "dark fantasy". WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia and must be met for all content. If you cannot provide suitable reliable sources showing it's considered specifically to be "dark fantasy", it can't be added to Wikipedia. If you make your edits again, you will be blocked. -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Violence within fantasy games and genres within game media actually contribute and define the tone of narrative source within the univerese and content message .So violence has major impact on the serious tone and deliver the subject matter intended for the target audience. The elder scrolls features medevil violence that is designed to inflict misery, pain,and death to the characters and inhabitants within universe. Elder scrolls feature this brutality ,blood and gore and violence intended for mature audiences and contribute the very serious tone to the main series within elder scrolls game. This provides a sense of dark and bleak atmosphere of the elderly scrolls, this is one of the defining elements why that contributes and defines Morrowind, Oblivion and skyrim as dark fantasy games. Just to be clear dark fantasy does not have to involve horror elements but sense of a serious crisis or threat to the existence of the characters within the narrative approach of the elderly scrolls games.

I only intended add the elder scrolls franchisee to the dark fanstasy section and never intended to change the content within the wikipedia articles.so therefore I haven't and never intended vandalise the articles. Also the Wikipedia welcomes freedom of speech and free will to share and contribute to the open source service of knowledge but so far I feel like I been dictated and threatened to act in a certain way in accordance to your freewill ,while reading the articles on this informative website.

May I ask what qualifications and life experiences do you have ? that grant the privileges and abuse the authority of dictating users on Wikipedia of expressing view points with realiable informative sources to write,,freedom of express factual viewpoints or fart in the wind of a certain way by constantly regulating the autocratic dictating system administrator.

Also, in compliance of uk the data protection laws 2018 that regulate any publish any personal information of users on this public wikipedia website without consent or any acknowledgedment that expose the personal information of location of a person IP address or location is a breach of the privacy and sensitive informations of users, this could conflict with the data protection law 2018 and all UK wikipedia policies must comply with the laws of this land.

So to recap I will not edit and I had no intention to change the articles of wikipedia. So no threats and precautions warnings within my account from any administratiors

Elder scrolls are definitely definition of both high fantasy and dark fanstasy genre.

As a user request there no need to respond to this. Also libaries, Museums and educational institutions are all great factual sources that not subjective and prove to be factual that beneficial to society.

Thank you for your time 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

Oneuser12 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A few quick responses but I don't see us making any progress. Categories are part of an article and absolutely must pass WP:V. Wikipedia is not "Free speech", see Wikipedia:Free speech. You've never been accused of vandalizing, you've been told not to make unsourced edits. As for your statements about the UK data protection laws, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I feel I should warn you that legal threats are grounds for being blocked. Read WP:LEGAL for more information. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind forget this has happen . I put any reliable sources with any changes edit in compliance wiki policies. Every body is entitled to their views . Have good a day 82.27.172.183 (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You've yet to quote a single reliable source, actually. -- ferret (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GameRant

Where's your evidence that GameRant is an unreliable website? Wouldn't you have to include at least one example, if not more, to make such a powerfully damaging claim against the website?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MeesterKennedy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@MeesterKennedy: Unreliable is a Wikipedia terminology to indicate a source doesn't meet our guideline for reliable sources. I linked to WP:VG/RS which is a project page for the video game area that vetted reliable sources. You can see there that Gamerant is currently listed as unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I read the reasons. There was a positive response saying it was quality content. The only drawback is that the belief was that there is a lot of new writers with not much publishing experience. However, this is a very poor measure on what can be considered reliable and what isn't. What's reliable is not how much experience you have, but if what you are saying is true or not. If you can't put up examples if this website passed off falsehoods as the truth, then this measure is flawed. It's also assuming that experienced sources cannot be lazy, liars, misinformed or corrupt, and that new writers by default can't be trusted in their field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MeesterKennedy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 16 April 2020 UTC (UTC)

@MeesterKennedy: You're welcome to open a new discussion on the talk page at WP:VG/RS. -- ferret (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Knights of the Old Republic game series

Hi Ferret, re: KOTOR being based on Tales of the Jedi, the source is BioWare themselves (I talked to them on their forums when the game was released, but feel free to ask them yourself), as well as if you just read Tales of the Jedi: Knights of the Old Republic (literally the name of the series made 10 years before the game), you will see how it is based on it.

Also, you asked for sources not me, here they are:

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Tales_of_the_Jedi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_of_the_Jedi https://www.scifinow.co.uk/interviews/how-star-wars-the-old-republic-owes-it-all-to-tales-of-the-jedi/

(from User_talk:MKIceman)

@MKIceman: As information, only that third source would be usable for this, but it should suffice. The other two, being user-editable wikis, are by definition unreliable. See WP:USERG. Just information for the future, good luck editing! -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Scrap Mechanic

Hey there. I saw you deleted that page back in January. I'm getting ready to start it up in main space, but I wanted to know if there was anything worthwhile in that deleted draft, so I can be lazy and use some existing text if possible. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Torchiest: One sentence stub with infobox. two sources, a devblog and the steam store page. Nothing usable. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mega Man Dates

Hello, I’m the one who changed the dates on the “Mega Man: The Power Battle” and “Mega Man 2: The Power Fighters” pages. After I did that I made an account.

I want to let you know that both those dates are accurate from what I can tell. These are the dates listed in the “Mega Man: Official Complete Works“ book which is cited as the source for both release dates. The September 22 date for Power Battle and June 8 date for Power Fighters are both inconsistent with the dates listed in the cited source and seem to be a work of vandalism so I corrected them. I should have explained this initially, I admit.

The user who added those erroneous dates, AllegroMastermind, has been adding misinformation to pages since 2018 and doesn’t seem likely to stop anytime soon. They made edits to the pages of several other Capcom video games in addition to those two Mega Man games back in May 2019 and I plan on going through and checking if they any of them are legitimate soon.

This user’s edits should be heavily scrutinized. Gravity Man from Mega Man 5 for the Nintendo Entertainment System (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

How does this happen and there a solution?

I frequently have had a Wikimedia error while editing periodically. I want to see if you could help on if there's a fix for that, or is it normal to experience this error message? Thanks. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: I'd need to know what error you're seeing to give any further information. Wikipedia does occasionally have issues with databases and the like. -- ferret (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Would the wording that displays the error notice work? I just was editing the Nintendo Switch game list M-Z and I encountered this message: Request from - via cp2033.codfw.wmnet, ATS/8.0.7

Error: 502, Next Hop Connection Failed at 2020-05-07 02:18:38 GMT Zacharyalejandro (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zacharyalejandro: My best guess here is that you are using some sort of proxy or web filter/monitor. This does not sound like a Wikimedia error, but a connection issue on your side. It could be some sort of firewall or monitor in your router, for example. Or if you're editing from a school, library or similar, they often employ such filters. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox video game

Hi Ferret--you think we can get rid of the wiklinks in those parameters, for Designer, Developer, etc? I think they're very distracting, and I don't think it's standard for infoboxes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: They've been there a long long time, I'd suggest bringing it up on the template talk before doing it. Seems hit or miss. Infoboxes for film and television don't, but Books and Company do have some wikilinked labels. -- ferret (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Korean companies established in 2007

A tag has been placed on Category:Korean companies established in 2007 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by recently blocked used

The user you recently blocked Skyz7888, continued with their disruptive editing as soon as their block ended. Please look into this, this needs a more permanent solution. Gotitbro (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Discord feedback

I just joined Wikipedia's official discord. It has been awesome for me so far :)

But I am curious about who coded WikiAuthBot. The reason is because I think it would be beneficial for the bot to use mw:OAuth as it is a bit more secure. That way, if a user is blocked from Wikipedia as well, they can effectively be autobanned from the Discord server as well (until the user is no longer blocked). Aasim 09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim and IVORK: It's planned to switch to OAUTH but I'm not sure Ivork has had time to work on it. However, we would not use it to autoban as blocked users sometimes in good faith join to learn about why they were blocked and how to avoid it in the future. -- ferret (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been on a fair WikiBreak, but I just submitted for access to use mw:OAuth. Will look into setting this up fully over the next week. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:OAuthListConsumers/view/4295fcdb3bcdcde0a6770a58ec8910cf — IVORK _Talk 02:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Ferret

how is it possible to add sources from newspapers dating when internet did not exist ? I have the articles paper based only. Also what about sources from a book that is published but not online? What about sources that are written in magazines that are paper based?

Many thanks Suissrael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suissrael (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Suissrael: Wikipedia:Citing sources covers how to do this, including how to cite both books and newspapers. -- ferret (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret : Can I use the following as a source ? http://www.hassia-judaica.de/Lebenswege/Deutsch/Katz_Willy/index.html#seite08.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suissrael (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)