User talk:Ferret/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Suspicious edits (of the copyright and promotional kind) on Full-face diving mask

Hey ferret! A user reached out to me on my talk page about suspicious editing activity to this article. The edit includes odd content removal, and also what seems to be a potential advertising issue and copyright violation. Here's the link to the discussion on my talk page for more details. This stuff is out of my expertise, but I've rolled it back for now, and wanted you to know just in case if anything else needs to be done besides just a warn. Panini! • 🥪 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Panini! It does look promotional. Give them a COI notice and let's see if it continues. -- ferret (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

DreamDoll (musician) should be moved to DreamDoll but protection is in the way

She recently got fame, and has a full page. How about we remove the protection on the original title, which is DreamDoll, so we can move the current article to there? It would make the title easier to read. While there are two pages with the same name, the other being Dream Doll, they already have disambiguation links to each other. AbsentPat (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@AbsentPat WP:RM/T would be able to handle this. At the moment I don't have time to evaluate. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

rollbacks

As rollback my edits, do you want to continue discussion on a talk pages of this articles? Tucvbif (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tucvbif You'll have to be specific about which edits or article. But if you have edits you make and they are contested, yes, you should go to the talk page to discuss them. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's just what I did. What's next? Tucvbif (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tucvbif I honestly don't know what you're talking about... is it about PC game? You added citation needed tags to several statements in the WP:LEDE. Those statements are all sourced in the body of the article and are uncontroversial, so per WP:LEDECITE, don't need a source in the lede itself. That is the only thing I can guess you are referring to from your recent contributions. What is there to discuss? -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

At first — about Steam Deck. Tucvbif (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you've got things you want to talk about, then just go to the respective talk page article and start up a new discussion. It doesn't need to be so drawn out like this. Go to Talk:Steam Deck (or whatever/wherever else you want to discuss) and click on the "new section" option and get started. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

But section, that I need, is already exists. Tucvbif (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you elsewhere, it's not a great idea to jump into stale conversations that are years old. Most editors don't hang around for years waiting for responses. Normally, I'd advise you to start a new discussion, but the community is currently kind of deadlocked in how to classify the Steam Deck, so that probably wouldn't help here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, potential blocking evasion

Hi. You blocked already User:108.175.235.192 and User:69.165.128.0/18, well seems to that user/s is/are back as User:216.154.1.132. The same behaviour and pages to edit etc. Sorry for taking your time. Nubia86 (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Nubia86 Re-blocked that one. -- ferret (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Nubia86 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

PlasStation 1 surse și dovezi pentru modele

Aceasta (albalog.blog.hu) este o sursă de încredere. Al Balog a văzut câteva zeci de console PlayStation și le-a cules de 30 de ani. El este cea mai bună sursă de informații despre modelul PlayStation. De asemenea, a văzut sute de modele PlayStation pe eBay în timpul cercetărilor sale. La fel și mulți dintre ei în persoană. Cred că trebuie să faci cercetări despre cine este editorul. Cred că este de încredere și am făcut referințe încrucișate la materialul său.

Sunt român szekler, deci pot să citesc în maghiară. În fiecare lună se termină o dată de consolă, următorul model este produs în aceeași lună din câte pot citi. De exemplu, 7501 a apărut în august 1998, iar ultimul model 7001 a apărut în august 1998. Îmi este ușor să citesc dovezile lui Al Balog. Iată informații despre autor în limba engleză.

https://www.reddit.com/r/psx/comments/113mrow/ps1_model_buying_guide_perhaps_the_most_reliable/ Patrula JPEG (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Patrula JPEG Hi, I'll need you to communicate in English here on Enwiki as I cannot read Hungarian and machine translation may not be reliable. Doing my best with machine translate, no, albalog.blog.hu is NOT a reliable source by English Wikipedia standards, per WP:BLOG. Could you explain how you came about this topic? You are not the editor I reverted. At PlayStation (console) I reverted the addition of https://albalog.blog.hu/2023/11/06/ps1_modell_gyujtemeny_gyartasi_orszag_szerint as a source for changing the year of discontinuation. This page makes zero claims of discontinuation. It simply displays the labels of several models without any commentary on when they were produced (other than when those specific units were, as per their label), or when production ended. This is extremely disruptive, and you need to stop reintroducing it. -- ferret (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am trying my best to write in English. I was recently rebuying a PS1 console and I did research on the models. The guides of Al Balog helped me pick out the right ones in the past. The images clearly shows and highlights the label dates. As a Hungarian reader the left labels in a picture is a first batch, the second is a last batch. Each image continues like a chain. For example, from his pictures August 1998 to May 1999, that is when the 7500 begins and ends. And seeing the 9000 beginning in May 1999, it is clear to me that is when the 7500 ends because its label says the same.

I agree that PlayStation (console) is to be reverted because I do not see any claims of discontinuation either. But as for the batch production dates and countries made on the PlayStation models page, the source applies to that well.

I bought most recently a 7500 machine from May 1999 that had no back label. I could only see 5 dots and a 99 under the lid. I was surprised seeing a 7500 machine that late and I thought it was a replaced shell from a 9000. Al Balog's information with the label confirmed my find of the 7500 machine that it existed. Patrula JPEG (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Patrula JPEG This blog is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, and original research regarding model numbers and their date of production is not suitable for claims for first and last manufacture. I again would like to ask how you noticed me cleaning up this bad source and original research? -- ferret (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

So, the provided source (albalog.blog.hu) is not considered a reliable source. Also with Al Balog having gathered information on PlayStation models for 30 years. Having observed dozens of consoles and conducted extensive research on eBay,The text says he conducted further research on the editor's background to establish credibility, with cross-references to Al Balog's material.

Szekler is one of our fellow romanian, and he is fluent in Hungarian and Romanian, facilitating the interpretation of monthly console production cycles. For instance, the text translatesd notes that model 7501 appeared in August 1998, and the last model, 7001, also surfaced in the same month. The ease of reading Al Balog's evidence is emphasized, providing valuable insights into PlayStation models though even if such blogs might not be taken into account as a reliable source anyway. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Luigi Cotocea Could you explain your connection to this topic? Why do you know these individuals personally and coming to their defense? Al Balog's website is absolutely not a reliable source per WP:RS, and on top of that, he's been socking, sharing accounts and promoting himself. This is not acceptable on English Wikipedia by any stretch. All 3 are against policy. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well you know, reliability of the source and the potential issues related to Al Balog's conduct. It's important to note that my initial comment aimed to provide a summary of the text rather than personally vouch for the credibility of the source. If there are valid concerns about the reliability or conduct of individuals involved, it would be prudent to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines like you've said.

And I do know that is one of our fellow Romanian, because the text written is literally in Romanian, i don't know them personally or anything like that or can deny the fact that indeed he does know hungarian or not.

I appreciate your perspective, and I understand the importance of maintaining reliability on Wikipedia. It's crucial to distinguish between summarizing information and endorsing the credibility of a source. While I aimed to provide a neutral summary, I want to emphasize that it does not serve as an endorsement of the source's reliability. Your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards is commendable, and I agree that it's essential to be cautious about the sources we reference. If you're not currently working on any articles, that's completely fine. The awareness and diligence you've shown in this situation contribute positively to the community's efforts to ensure the accuracy and credibility of information on Wikipedia. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

... is this a Chat GPT response? -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit war resolution

Hi, I see you reverted my edit on Undertale. I disagree with your reasoning and I have added a section on that article's talk page to discuss. (I know I did say that people could revert my edit if I had missed an example of usage of "LOVE" other than by Flowey but you didn't seem to provide an example. If you meant to and I missed it please let me know.) TypoEater (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi, I am new to Wikipedia and am an anthropology teacher. I am attempting to help improve a great page by Pppery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pppery titled Indigenous Science by including more data about various TEK practices depending upon the region. I am doing this by involving my class on Indigenous North American Practices and I am hoping to get in touch with Pppery but it appears they are on a break and have been for a bit. Do you know how I might get in touch with them? I am worried that my students will drive them crazy with edits, corrections, etc. and I don't want to do that! Thanks for any info you might have and if this was the incorrect way to get this question answered I apologize :) Best Lady3Eye Lady3Eye (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lady3Eye You can leave a message at @Pppery's talk page or email them. I have no other contact methods for them. -- ferret (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still around, but it's not my page, I only made a few minor edits to it and tried to nominate an old version of it for deletion at one point. See the page history. And no, lots of edits will in no way drive me crazy. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Violation?

Hi, i would like to know why my image is a copyright violation (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rotanev_Insignia_Dashboard_2024.png). I took this image myself on an emulator called Xemu. What exactly is a copyright violation? Unbreakify (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unbreakify You took the screenshot, yes. A screenshot of someone else's property, for which you do not own the copyright nor have authorization to release under a Creative Commons license.. You do not own the rights to Insignia and their terms expressly forbid doing this. -- ferret (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ill just ask the creator on their comms server. Unbreakify (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unbreakify That's really irrelevant. This is a screenshot of the Xbox Live interface on an Xbox console, which means its copyrighted by Microsoft in the end, not Insignia. -- ferret (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

You just told me that insignia's terms of service matter though, so why did you even bring that up to start with if Microsoft actually owns the copyright? You're giving me mixed signals here Unbreakify (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

If Microsoft owns the rights to the dashboard, wouldnt this logo be copyrighted to begin with? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:XboxLivelogo.png Unbreakify (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) - potentially needs a change of license, but that would likely not be complex enough to be copyrightable. A discussion for another venue. Unless the underlying product is released under a compatible license (which isn't true here), the derivative work (the screenshot) isn't either. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Unbreakify No mixed signal at all. It's simply that both Insignia and Microsoft would forbid this. @Lee Vilenski This is way above TOO as the interface is not simple geometric shapes at all. Unless you meant the logo alone. Either way, Yann has deleted the screenshot. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to the link they provided to the Xbox live logo File:XboxLivelogo.png. I agree it's probably too much. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

LTA'ers

Hi ferret - a new IP popped up on my talk page, spouting the same garbled nonsense about anime as the last LTA user you blocked there. Mind giving it a look? It'd be unwise for me to report it as block evasion without solid proof. Thanks in advance. Synorem (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Synorem Blocked. Just let me know when you see them, they're rather obvious once you've seen it. Unfortunately all I can really do is block and revert. Their ISP is a mess, after a bit enough blocks silences them for a few months. Note that 90.64.130.147 is someone else. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Everybody's Best Friend

Like Ween, I can't put my finger on it, but there's something that's really setting off my spidey sense with Everybody's Best Friend. I was wondering if you recognized this editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate They have caught my attention as well, but I also could not quite put my finger on anything. Their deep knowledge of MOS:VG in particular indicates not new. -- ferret (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Oh, it's going to be Tkgood. Email me if you want the tell, but if you scan the last two socks it should jump out. -- ferret (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I actually forgot about him. I guess it's been a few months since I last blocked one of his socks. EBF just reverted me on an article I created, so I'll defer to you handling this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I will dig in the morning. -- ferret (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Well I decided to look now. Confirmed, bnt. -- ferret (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Dead or Alive (franchise)/Fandom

The mentioned community websites, groups, and forums exist on the web. The producers at Team Ninja and Koei Tecmo gave special thanks to them during their production. Nothing has stated that the end credits of a production is considered unreliable. Also, why not help edit the statement instead of removing it? Sonic100jam (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sonic100jam Because unverified content should be removed. Please explain, with time stamps, where the credits mention the following items: "Much like other fanbases", "fanbase consists of numerous", fan art, cosplays, fan fiction, fan videos. This really needs a secondary source, but I'd like to understand why you believe the end credits support these statements just because they thanked various communities. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's only one statement I made. It's not like the franchise doesn't have a fanbase. Pop cultural works always consist of fanbases with numerous fan art, cosplays, fan fiction, and fan video, it's the norm. A minor statement like that doesn't have to be sourced. As for the communities that were given credit to by the producers of the franchise, they obviously don't deserve dedicated articles, but they do deserve a minor mention in sentence or statement.Sonic100jam (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sonic100jam Ok, so it's unsourced and unverified. Please stop including all this fancruft without reliable secondary sources. If you can't, a block is likely to prevent further unsourced content and original resource. -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

OK! As for the end credit video, the content of the video is official. No fan related content is present. There are multiple related video sources that feature the exact same content. Sonic100jam (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you apparently can't point out where they verify and support the claimed statements. -- ferret (talk) 03:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Series Creators

You reverted muy edit about the series creators of Final Fantasy. You reverted it back to only Hironobu Sakaguchi but I think the creator status must be awarded also to Nobuo Uematsu (ost), Nasir Gebelli (programming), Kenji Terada (scenario) and Yoshitaka Amano (art) since without all of them Final Fantasy wont be the series we all know today.

Also you credited back the "Artist" to only Tetsuya Nomura and not Nomura and Amano, I think that's not correct since Nomura joined SquareSoft in 1992, way after the original games. Josecharlie (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Josecharlie Please use the article's talk page to discuss content disputes, and make sure you provide reliable secondary sourcing that shows these individuals are credited as being the creators of the series, not just individuals who worked on the first game. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Revert of Adding SteamDeck to Cyberpunk 2077 as dedicated plattform

Hey Ferret,

I agree, the distinction is hard to make between Linux and SteamDeck in general. But forgive me if I'm wrong but Linux is not a supported Platform for this game, nor is it listed as supported in this article.

So if SteamDeck is the same as Linux, Linux as a platform should be listed. If not, SteamDeck should be listed, as it's officially supported but Linux is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberpunk_2077&oldid=prev&diff=1177450602

Best regards, RubenKelevra (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@RubenKelevra SteamDeck is running the Windows version of the game through the Proton layer. Windows is the platform: SteamDeck simply has a way to play Windows games. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so Linux and SteamDeck is not the same.

Valve did release Cyberpunk for the SteamDeck as “verified”. So regardless how it's archived, it's now officially supported:

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/1091500/view/3674411657971442988

Best regards RubenKelevra (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@RubenKelevra Verified means that Valve has certified that the game runs to an acceptable level on the SteamDeck. It's still the Windows version of the game though. -- ferret (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Top 100

Hello Ferret, you may know me as creator and moderator of the List of Top 100 Games by Number of Referenced Sources on the talk page of the List of Games Considered the Best article. I understand your reasoning behind the removal of my DoNotArchive tag on the list. I am, however, somewhat confused as to why this is happening now, as the list has been up for nearly a year now with seemingly no issue, so I am curious as to the timing of it all. Speaking of which, I’ve noticed you’ve removed the DoNotArchive tags on the How to Add More Games and Lists articles on the talk page as well. Seeing as I, and many others, would consider these pages to be crucial, I’m additionally curious as to the reason behind this. XJJSX (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@XJJSX I have pondered it for more than a year, and took action after yet another "No one reads the FAQ, so I'll add another unarchivable note about reading the FAQ, which is already unarchivable and stickied at the top of the page.". Frankly, they never should have been marked unarchivable, we have to FAQ template for these critical bits of information that pertain specifically to the maintenance of the article. Content that is not directly about the maintenance of the article and simply a related information piece does not belong on this talk page in the first place, let alone permanently retained. -- ferret (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll add that it's... kinda problematic that all of your editing seems to be maintaining this list, which shouldn't be on this talk page in the first place... This talk page is for improving the related article, not chronicling related data as a side project. You're using the article's talk page as a sort of WP:WEBHOST. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for the FAQ note in that last update, I just figured I could help in some fashion by posting a “Ted Talk”, as I referred to it, as the last three talk pages had been users just…asking if there favorite game could be added without any research backing it up. As for the WEBHOST thing, I was not aware of this rule as I am still kinda new to Wikipedia editing, and by no means do I want to infringe on Wikipedia’s Rules. I’m not trying to be kinda problematic, I just wanted to post something that I thought would be fun, but if this is not the purpose of wiki, or at least this specific wiki page, then I will abide by it. All I can say I suppose is that, in hindsight, it would’ve been nice to have this brought to my attention sooner. Perhaps it wasn’t because people really did enjoy it, despite not fitting the actual purpose of the talk page. BTW, I have messaged Pheduik about potentially getting my list into the Omnibus data, as you suggested, as I’m pretty sure he’s the one who runs the Google Doc. Sorry for the long response, just wanted my thoughts to be known. XJJSX (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@XJJSX It rode the edge of being tangentially related, but I've not been happy about those DoNotArchives all along. We essentially had a section saying "Read the FAQ! It has the inclusion criteria!" immediately below the FAQ. Keep in mind, people ignore FAQs, and even talk sections right above the one they are opening, ALL the time. No number of extra "READ THE FAQ" notices will prevent that in the end. -- ferret (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Ocarina of Time Version disagreement

Sorry, I didn't mean to disrupt the Oot wiki. I just want to add info that may be useful for newcomers. I did not read the info you sent me till after I was blocked. I'm new to Wikipedia and just wanted to make the Oot wiki better. Sorry for the trouble. But is it possible I could make a wiki page for the versions that doesn't disrupt the main page? Zeldanerd64 (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Zeldanerd64 No, this information is not suitable for Wikipedia, see WP:NOTCHANGELOG. It belongs on a fan site like Wikia/Fandom instead. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

you considered the anbernic console spam

Simple question: why? Did you try it? You got problems with the brand? Suoko (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Suoko It's simple. There's no reliable secondary sourcing for it, and it's non-notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. -- ferret (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was about to remove it too. We don't link to external websites like that. It looks like a promotional move when you link to the products website like that. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 I have nothing to do with that console. How can I solve the issue then? Just put it without any links? Suoko (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll try add a couple of more consoles. I'm just trying to update the list, Im5not promoting anything (I think nobody uses Wikipedia to do so) Suoko (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Consoles on the list need to have their own articles and meet WP:NPRODUCT. There are HUNDREDS of cheap low volume consoles like this. It's through the use of reliable secondary coverage that we determine what should and should not be included on Wikipedia. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Lower Roblox's protection back to semi

I feel like 5 years of extended confirmed-protection caused by vandalism back in 2019 is a bit overkill. If semi doesn’t work raise it back to extended confirmed protection. The article is a bit of a stub besides controversies partially due to the protection limiting the amount of information (which may be caused by them being the only thing with a backlog of reliable sources but we might as well try). CharlieEdited (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@CharlieEdited No, I don't think so. Not only are the LTAs that protection is against still active, the talk page is constantly disruptively edited as well. You are welcome to make edit requests backed by reliable sources. They were usually actioned pretty quickly. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of the talk page vandalism comes from IP users or “new” accounts. Some disruptive edits do come from autoconfirmed users, which might be enough to justify the current protection but I’m unsure. CharlieEdited (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just keep editing and you'll be able to edit it yourself soon enough. Sergecross73 msg me 19:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Odd behavior with new user

User:RealAgentJ immediately made an AfD as one of their first few edits. I closed it soon after per WP:CSK#3, as its reasoning was erroneous and there are very clearly sources, a decent amount in gaming magazines. Still, going to a full AfD behind the scenes as your first thing on Wikipedia strikes me as indicating they had previous editing experience, suspicious and odd, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm The magic CU goggles suggest this is probably VGRxUpdater, both technically and behaviorally. @PhilKnight as info. Not sure who the master is there. Simply blocked as a sockpuppet for now. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by IP user

While looking through Recent Changes I spotted an IP user (96.38.236.30) who has been vandalizing articles (their entire contribs is vandalism), including some nonsense sections in Talk:S. Just wanted to let you know TypoEater (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@TypoEater They haven't edited since their final warning for that. They'll catch a block the next time though. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Gabe Newell wealth

Hi. You reverted a change, with the note "'One of', not 'the'". In fact, the article text reads: "estimated as one of the wealthiest people in the United States and the wealthiest person in the video game industry". galenIgh 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@.galenIgh You're right, I misread that. However, it's also pegged to "in 2021", and this is sourced in the article prose. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you interested enough in the topic to warrant more discussion?

If so I'll start it under the article's Talk page. Regarding US wealthiest, game industry, compared to Sweeney, Forbes and Bloomberg lists... galenIgh 18:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

If you really feel its warranted. At best it just needs a little wordsmithing and clarification that this the fact based in 2021. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't fully clear cut also in 2021, and there's newer info. And the US-top aspect is a bit too glorified, relatively speaking. I could edit directly in the article, but you seemed to be watching over the article carefully. galenIgh 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see either of these statements as problematic, but if you feel it must be addressed, the talk page is certainly the place to do so, with reliable sourcing presented. -- ferret (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Details in the last Talk comment. galenIgh 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Historyday01 and User:71.179.137.86

Seems suspicious on what they're doing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar. After History made some edits, the IP came out immediately; both participating Vaggie AfD. Again, after the IP made an edit with a time of 03:04, a minute later History returns and made an edit again with the time 03:07. Looks like the same person if you're gonna look at their editing pattern and both of them made "there must be sources" arguments at the afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not related to that IP user, to be perfectly clear. In line with Wikipedia rules, I have already noted my only other alternative account on my profile: it is @User:Historyhermann1993, which I no longer use. I have no idea who that IP user is and I am not them. Can we please keep this civil without throwing around accusations? Seriously. I would rather we keep on the topic of the AfDs, in those discussions, than with anything like this. Thanks!--Historyday01 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle! Checkusers are not allowed to comment on the relationship between users and IPs. All I can say though is it does look suspicious for this IP to appear at both these AFDs. @Historyday01 I do caution to make sure you aren't asking any friends to come comment on these. Socking or canvassing to AFD is very disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not asking any friends (I don't have any friends who use Wikipedia) to comment on these discussions, no. I did post on the page of one person who created the page, only to ask them to contribute (as I think their thoughts would be useful), but otherwise, I only posted about the discussion on WikiProjects. Besides, posting on the WikiProjects (I used all the ones listed on the Charlie Morningstar page, including some which were listed as "semi-active") is more efficient than posting on individual users pages anyhow. Historyday01 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Cel shaded title issue

I added that game South Park: Snow Day! to the cel shaded games wiki list because I was pretty sure it used such graphic type.

But someone without a nickname (just an IP address) [removed it, claiming that it doesn't use cel shaded graphics].

Can you please check video footage of screens out there for the game. Plenty of them. Does it seem cel shaded to you? I think he needs to reread the meaning at Cel shading webpage. ObiKKa (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@ObiKKa "Check the video footage" would be WP:OR. I'm not qualified to make a statement on whether something is cell shaded or simply a similar approximate style. What you want is a reliable secondary source stating that it's cell shading. -- ferret (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to look for an external source. Thanks.

You can remove this issue. ObiKKa (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi

@Ferret, Hello, sorry for my brother's vote. The dogcat (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@The dogcat It's fine. Please though, stop pinging and messaging uninvolved editors to an AFD. This is WP:CANVASING and can be grounds for being blocked. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Genres

why do you keep providing obly one genre for games. Where ganes can have several genres. Such as prey when its not only fps but immerive sin as well 46.70.123.161 (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I truly do not know what you're speaking of. I have not edited any video game genres recently to my knowledge, and normally don't other than patrolling bad unsourced edits. -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any experience with blocking MariaJaydHicky socks?

Please see User talk:Izno#MariaJaydHicky sock. I've already informed two admins but not sure either are online. Kepin' it FUNKY has now performed at least five reverts on Cowboy Carter today alone. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (the last is a manual revert of this). Ss112 13:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 I was looking at it earlier, but had not finished coming to a conclusion. @Ad Orientem already blocked now. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked a few of their socks in the past and this looks like another one. I'd add that Ss112 is probably the closest thing we have to a human sock detector when it comes to this LTA. Not saying they are infallible, but when they come to me with a suspected sock report, in my experience they are usually right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem I can say the geolocate is right, but other than that, it looks just like the LTA page describes. -- ferret (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: MariaJaydHicky already back with a registered account named Tabusdonny. Edit warring, already made 4+ reverts. There was also a London-based IP adding the same source MJH used yesterday here. Could the protection for Cowboy Carter also maybe increased? The pending revisions thing isn't really working, as other editors are just blindly accepting the sockpuppets' edits because they're sourced without knowing who the editors clearly are. Ss112 06:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 Confirmed, blocked. Do remember it's pointless to argue with MariaJaydHicky. -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There are also two SPI investigations involving the user at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky which has requested CU, in case none of you are aware of this already. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 12:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan Replied. -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 I bumped up the page protection for a couple months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings. It made me very sad to think that I did. I didn't know what you meant I guess. I'm crying a lot, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sleyece Rest assured, my feelings are not hurt. Take a step away from Wikipedia to clear your mind, or focus on doing a little editing away from background processes or controversial areas. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No idea what this is about, but I also cannot think of a single scenario where this sort of comment helped anyone accomplish anything. Probably best to stop and rethink whatever this is supposed to be. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It was just an apology. I wasn't trying to accomplish anything. I don't want anything from anyone. I'm going to take some time off now. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

Hello ferret, wanted to let you know that a user you indeffed on March 20 appears to have returned to editing since the following day using two IPs on the same range. In addition to the suspicious timing, some of the behavioral similarities to the named account include using visual editor, adding a large amount of detail without sources, and most convincingly the extensive overlap from the more heavily-used IP. Please consider looking into the matter and taking action as needed, thanks. Left guide (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Left guide Painfully obvious. Range blocked for 6 months. Clean up as you see fit. -- ferret (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

God, I'm sorry...

I can't go a single day without feeling guilty of all the harassment I've thrown at you. At that time, I was in a tough spot (with schoolwork and such), and everything spiraled out of control. It was quite stupid of me to ignore your comments and recklessly barrage you with numerous personal attacks. Again, I'm truly sorry; I'll try not to overreact to disagreements again. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@TrademarkedTWOrantula Thumbs up. Remember that editing this site is not critical. Things can go slow, they can be put off till tomorrow, we can take breaks and clear our heads. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Ermac

Hey again, Ferret. Well, apparently the article now has an edit war problem. But these 2 edits seem a bit suspicious [6] [7], with the same editing pattern like trimming or removing content. The moment after they made an edit to Ermac, they've also edited other Mortal Kombat characters and possibly edited warring articles like Sub-Zero and Scorpion [8] [9] [10]. (I'm not accusing someone; it's just a bit odd for another account to appear suddenly?). Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 13:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle! To say I'm disappointed is an understated. Confirmed, blocked, tagged. I hope a well thought appeal is forthcoming. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, ferret. After finding out about all of this earlier today I wound up here as a result, so I hope you don't mind an audience. The issue wasn't even Blazewing's edits; if anything it was a personal wake-up call that the article indeed needed revising. The problem is that they would not brook any changes to their edits while accusing me of warring and disrespect on their sockpuppet account. I'd explained my actions in subsequent edits ([11], [12]) while trying to avoid WP:OWN and following editing guidelines of video game character articles. Thanks for your time. (Tagging Greenish_Pickle! to inform them of my post.) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Beemer69 To be honest, I didn't dive into the details of any of the content in question here. I simply took a look at behaviors and overlaps, coupled with the ghbh approach of mediating their (apparently own) dispute, and judged that a check was sufficiently warranted. The check resulted in clear as day blatant evidence, so I blocked. This is a clear WP:BADSOCK case. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary sources

Sorry admin I wasn't aware of the rules. Cloud Strife article contains roughly 83 primary sources (maybe there are more) and 57 of them alone present in the Appearances section. Appearances section contains 80 references but 57 of them are primary so that's like 75% so would it appropriate to tag this section for primary sources or should it be always 80+%?. On the other hand, Lara Croft's characteristics section contains 12 references and 9 of them are books but I thought that books are primary sources. I guess I was a bit confused. 39.50.246.233 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Books absolutely aren't primary sources. Primary sources are sources essentially written directly by the subject. They also aren't forbidden by any stretched, just to be used with care. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Capital Wasteland soft deletion

I think there must be some mistake here. The article has more than 3 pieces of significant coverage, one of them being a year apart from the other ones. There are several more 2018 sources including one from Paste Magazine. The article fulfills all notability criteria including SIGCOV and SUSTAINED. I would preferably like an explanation for why it does not qualify for an article. The edit summary mentions the project being "dead", which is not the case, but even if it was, it would be notable by its gaming press mentions alone. It being a Fallout 3 term also doesn't really affect anything, since the fictional Capital Wasteland is not a notable location. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I mean, I really felt I was pretty clear? I don't consider this notable from an encyclopedic view. This is a mod that has never been completed, and as sourced, received only brief flurries of announcement coverage. If you have more sources, why aren't they in use? You can pre-empt a lot of notability questions by fully sourcing articles. No, I don't consider 4 sources all posted on the same date about the same thing to demonstrate notability: It just demonstrates that the major sites all report the same things. I also don't consider "announced/cancelled in 2018, uncancelled in 2019, and zero news in the last 5 years" to be SUSTAINED. -- ferret (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed the article already had sufficient sources to pass GNG. For reference: this is a large piece of SIGCOV about its development. This is an article from a year earlier about its apparent cancellation. This is an article about its uncancellation. These are all separate subjects for articles so I dispute the idea they are the same thing.

If you still think it fails notability, I guess I will have to wait and see if it gets any more press mentions sometime. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm The SIGCOV you pointed out is basically an interview. Great source for details but interviews are weak for notability. You have 3 sources that are all about the cancellation, all dated the same date. All this coverage in roughly a year, year and a half time frame, then radio silence for 5+ years, is not SUSTAIN in my eyes. There is enough to make mention in a modding section related to Fallout 4. I do not see notability for a spinout though. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll just treat it as a WP:TOOSOON situation. Technically it did get coverage in 2021... albeit from an unreliable source, and did an official update in 2022. However, reliable sources did not pick it up since 2019 so I will have to wait for that, if anything ever happens with it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I appreciate your position here and your willingness to agree to TOOSOON right now. Right now, it has every appearance of being a stalled project that has not carried further reliable secondary source attention since it's last "We're actually still doing it" announcement. We have no release reception or finalized development because it's never reached stages where that is possible. The development coverage right now (as written) essentially amounts to "Bethesda might send us a C&D? Maybe? Ok Maybe Not?". I'm confident a release will bring much more sourcing. -- ferret (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

referencing, and name change

hi! ferret, while unblocking me, you advised me to look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. i have read these before, but was it because of my edits on simple.wiki that made you link me to them again? if i were to guess, it'd be me using primary sources for references (i only used it in credits where i thought it might be necessary but since the line between where exactly can primary sources be used was a blur, and no one reverted or pointed that out to me i left it as it is), was it because of that? if yes, i can stop adding them and remove them from where i already added where not necessary.
also, i have agreed to one account restriction, so i will edit from this account only, but am i disallowed name changes as well? would it be considered appropriate for me to request a name change, or would that be treated as evading scrutiny? this was my second name here after a name change request since my first name was associated with someone's youtube channel and i did not want to be associated with them, but this name was chosen in a hurry and both of these were a jumble of my nickname. as you already know, i later created 2 other new. but since i can only keep this account, and this would potentially be my second name change request, would it be allowed since i dont have any active bans? HimuTheEditor (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@HimuTheEditor You are fine to request name changes. This doesn't obscure anything as its still the same account, with the same contribution history and logs. As for primary sources, you really ought to be focusing on work using reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed, but sometimes require careful handling. If you had trouble with them before, just don't use them right now. Definitely do not go on a spree removing them. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Understood. I have a few more doubts, to save time I will ask them all in one go so it does not take away much of your time.

Would it be appropriate to remove the blocked / sock-puppet tag from my user page now?

Also, is it alright to delete the previous conversations on talk page, the ones that have been potentially resolved? I have seen there's some archiving system that works but I believe either can work since they can always be viewed from the page history if necessary?

From that, would it be appropriate to edit my discontinued accounts user pages (possibly marking them for deletion?) from this account, I understand that the user talk pages cannot be deleted, so, would it appropriate to mention discontinued accounts or such on their talk pages? But I am doubtful since that can be treated as evading scrutiny since they were my past accounts, but I am doubtful of that since the admins / check users can always check the logs if deemed necessary so it shouldn't matter?.

One last thing, I have learned a lot of things over the time I was blocked, albeit hard but I believe it is possible to build my reputation back from scratch from this moment on with my constructive edits from this account, before I was too focused on clean starts and alike. Should I mention my past block history and accounts on my user page? of course you can see them if you browse the pages history but I believe many who might visit user page might not do that and it is helpful for them to know. What do you suggest? should I mention them? these are all the doubts that I have. HimuTheEditor (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@HimuTheEditor 1) I will remove the tag as Checkuser. 2) Yes, you can remove or archive the block discussions now. 3) You shouldn't muck with those accounts at all. Leave them as is. 4) That's up to you. Your block log is public, as is the unblock entry, and the discussions on your talk page will remain in the history even after removal/unarchiving. It's hardly hidden. -- ferret (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, got it. thank you for your help. HimuTheEditor (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

User:KikanshaThomas1984

You may be familiar with this person/behavior. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Greenish Pickle! At a quick glance, no. You'll have to suggest a master for me to compare, I didn't spot one in my quick look. -- ferret (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls: Arena

Not all primary sources can be considered reliable Trade (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trade That's true, but this is the developer of the game, and its a simple basic fact. -- ferret (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that they have gotten the release date of their older titles wrong multiple times Trade (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trade Seems like something you'll need to point out on the talk page then, with other sourcing to back it. The unreliable source tag, with no further reasoning, makes no argument here that other editors can evaluate. -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Invited (kind of)

A while ago you said you wouldn't mind helping out look at something based on unusual behavior, so I'm taking you up on your offer. Girth Summit has more experience with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheCurrencyGuy, but they don't appear to be around today. The user in question is Specialrequestaccount, and the background is on my Talk page. I believe the IP range the user is referring to - and says belongs to them - is Special:contributions/2A00:23C8:4DA4:5F01:0:0:0:0/64, and Jahor12345, who is the account that was blocked at the same time as a sock and whom they deny being, is, AFAIK, the only non-stale account (suspected, not confirmed) out there. As you can see from the SPI archive, the master has evaded their block mainly with IPs, not very many named accounts. The IPs all geolocate to England, so Special ticks that box anyway. Could you take a look? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Jhor12345 and Jahor12345 confirmed. There's three separate ISPs involved here, though all with roughly same geolocate. CU data wise, I cannot confirm Jhor12345 to TheCurrencyGuy with what I know of the case. Jhor12345 and Specialrequestaccount appear to be Unrelated from CU view. I can't say anything about the IP, of course. -- ferret (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Ferret. I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about Special. It appears that they want a green light to edit currency articles. I guess, for the moment at least, I'll do nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• As long as you're here, though, I have another, this one more like the ones we were discussing a while ago, meaning I don't have a master, just very unusual editing from a new user. Again, easiest thing to do is look at a Talk page, but not mine, but the possible sock's. Interestingly, since I remarked on the user's comments at ANI, they've done it again. I also think their responses to the IP are much more suspicious than their first response to me, although I too picked up on the phrase "I forgot the username and password to one of the accounts I had before". Finally, how many inexperienced users respond to IPs with the phrase "IP Editor"? "I am not in the liberty to say"? Putting aside the bad English, why not?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bbb23 Enough here for me to feel a look warranted, but unfortunately, nothing to report. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll leave you alone for a while. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

QuantumFoam66

I was curious if you recognized who QuantumFoam66 might be. Their third edit uses hotcat. This edit seems to indicate someone who's a bit young and may have been blocked in a previous incarnation for screwing up VG categories. However, I don't really know anyone offhand who edits VG categories except for Deloop82, and this doesn't really look like him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate I dug, but could not come across anything. Spotted a few old CensoredScribes that never got blocked but they're long abandoned :P None of the Category LTAs in this space that I know (or checked on) use HotCat. -- ferret (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - help

Good Evening, I added added reliable sources/ references to an article, but another editor reverted my edits without a specific reason. What can I do? Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! you need to respond to editors who ask you why you did a revert. This revert is not well explained. "Unreliable sources" was your edit note, but these are official primary sources and that's not really an adequate explanation to @Mary.Perry.Panda on why it isn't appropriate. Mary, please give a read to WP:PRIMARY. In this case, because the sources are Capcom themselves, we have to use them with care. Claims of a character or franchise being the most popular or well received, coming from the publisher itself, is promotional in nature. We need secondary sources for this kind of content. -- ferret (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I already explained to my last reversion + that article literally GA, not a dumping ground of listicles. We shouldn't definitely cite primary sources at reception section. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the Nintendo Life is reliable, but it is still isn't worth to add it at lead, especially with a bias tone "Chris Redfield is very popular among Resident Evil fans and one of their highest ranked characters" for a single source, so it should be omitted.

🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a fan-survey. and therefore reliable Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I already told you Nintendo Life is the only reliable source right there per WP:VG/RS , if you disagree then go to WP:VG talk page. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Nintendo isn't the only source Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading comprehension plsss. Ferret the user still added a lowquality sources to the page lead and goes to other pages to remove content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

is Kotaku a lowquality source? Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

According to The six good article criteria, a good article should be neutral and without editorial bias. The "reception" section (Chris Redfield) is based on lowquality sources (Kotaku) and positive reviews from critics are not mentioned/ included. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

help

Good Evening, I added reliable sources/ references to an article, but another editor keeps reverting my edits. According to The six good article criteria, a good article should be neutral and without editorial bias. The "reception" section (Chris Redfield) is based on lowquality sources (Kotaku) and positive reviews from critics are not mentioned/ included. I tried to present viewpoints fairly, but the other user reverted my edits. What else can I do? Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mary.Perry.Panda You'll need to discuss this on the article's talk page and establish a consensus before making further edits to this page. Unfortunately, you decided to push forward with editing instead of discussing things to a conclusion, which has resulted in an edit war block against that article. On top of that, I see you started removing unquestionably reliable and accepted sources as part of the edit war. The article's talk page is where you need to be, not on various user talk pages shopping for a different response. If you continue this when your partial block expires, its likely that a harsher block will be imposed. There is no rush. Slow down and listen to experienced editors. -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

New user and WP:ARBECR

I came across Samesexmerriage (talk about inflammatory usernames) because one of their articles, Martin Kohlmann, was tagged as WP:G10. I declined the g10 because it was sourced, but, even though the user, whose account was created on May 5, has only 98 edits, they were creating (many) pages that involve ARBPIA (Kohlmann is not one of them). I've been thinking about deleting them per ARBECR, but I'm a bit hesitant to do that, mainly because I don't really get involved in arbitration enforcement anymore (too complicated and often too much red tape). Anyway, I think the user's behavior warrants a check. Please let me know if you disagree. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Friedjof. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a concise response! I'm not familiar with that case. Anyway, made it much easier to delete all their creations. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Lol it took a bit for me to research and decide to check, so then I was ready to go watch TV before bed :P -- ferret (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding edits on Pokémon GO

Hey, noticed you reverted one of my edits in the COVID-19 section of the article. Considering that said section of the article hasn’t been updated since 2021 - and contains extra, irrelevant information, I think the removal of the sources is necessary to prevent citation overkill. TwitchingMovie (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@TwitchingMovie You removed sourced information without explaining why beyond a vague "out of date". Historical events don't get removed because time has passed. You'll need to use the article's talk page to better explain why you believe those details should be removed, despite being covered by reliable secondary sources. -- ferret (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Related to the categories for video games by languages.

Hi. I noticed that you recently reverted my two edits where I added "English-language-only video games" to Helltaker and Pizza Tower. I am not 100% sure what was the meaning of this, but it doesn't really matter now since have nominated main category and subcategories of Video games by language for deletion. These categories are not too defining (I supposed) and more importantly, large numbers of individual titles would alternatively already be located within the subcategories of Region-exclusive video games, hence the fact "Japanese-only-language video games" contains only a single article, nevertheless nearly all titles in Japanese only would be located at "Japan-exlcusive video games". QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@QuantumFoam66 Read WP:CATDEF. The short version though: Categories should be things that are defining traits that a given subject is known for and frequently commented on by reliable sources. Neither game has sourcing that explicitly calls out that they are "english language only" games. -- ferret (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Most other articles located in this category don't mention the fact they're only in English once anyway. (does it really count if reliable sources do however not in the article itself?)

Oh, and please tell me if you really agree with my CfD nominations. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@QuantumFoam66 I simply reverted the category being added on two articles that happen to be on my watchlist. I did not evaluate the rest of the category. Yes, I pretty much believe these should be deleted. -- ferret (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Pjesnik21 sock?

Hi Ferret. I think we might have another Pjesnik21 sock with Sk53121. Making Croatian chart updates, and editing Balkan topics like Vjekoslava Huljić, Danijela Martinović, Nina Badrić and Breskvica, which Pjesnik21 and/or their socks (Jovarca1000000 and Drolq) have all made similar contributions to. Ss112 19:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo could you take a look at this one? I see a block you placed that I think is for a different master. What I know of Pjesnik21, this is right ISP but wrong devices. Drolq was the last sock I blocked. Topic overlap, but some other behaviors are different. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

My block is for a different master with a completely different locus of interest.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ponyo. @Ss112 right now, I am leaning towards this not being Pjesnik21. Drolq was active at the same time as this new user, and although some topics overlap, there are other behavior clues that differ. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ferret, I think Pjesnik21 might have used 5.133.158.23 today and have been on that range previously, if the Balkan topics and Charli XCX edits are anything to go by. Could you perhaps check this is them? Not asking for confirmation obviously. If that isn't them, then 95.156.145.50/16 absolutely is. They've been on that range since this edit where they reverted me. This overlinking is classic Pjesnik21. Ss112 10:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ss112 Blocked on behavioral evidence. That is the /16 from before. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible sock/disruptive user

Hello, there is a user who I think is a sock puppet. The user in question is "BKeira930". BKeira930 is obsessed with editing composition sections in music articles. Their edits usually consist of them adding original or unreliable information. Administrators typically revert their edits, yet BKeira930 always reverts them back, which causes a disruption. Also, nearly each month BKeira930 is warned by administrators about their actions and they finally got blocked. In the midst of their blocking several accounts popped up such as "Tidalwave417" and "Yogartcups". I think user "BKeira930" is behind those two accounts. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@OkIGetIt20 I don't think there is enough evidence to check here, sorry. There's some difference between the two accounts and BKeira930 without even checking, and they registered after BKeira930's block had already expired they had returned to editing. Other than editing that one article, there isn't enough to go on. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Alucard edit war

Sorry for bothering but I need to ask a favor. The article Alucard (Castlevania) has had an edit war in regards to the character's sexuality in the Netflix series. People discussed it in the talk page but it has become inactive, leading to removal of a category. I don't want to block the two users especially since the one who added it has good faith in my view and that he kept properly improving most Castlevania's articles in the past weeks. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tintor2 Indefinitely partial blocked from the Alucard article. I almost blocked them outright, as their entire career is on the removing and erasure of LGBTQ characterizations in media. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

thanks Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Help

Hello sir. The user Boneless Pizza! was keep using my name and my quotes as part of his user page. I warned him several times but he keep ignoring me. Although he stopped when he got an email.[13] Regardless, I won't tolerate this behavior. I have some self-respect too, if he wanted to use me on his user page then he should've talked to me and ask for permission. Kazama16 (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Self-respect" really? You made a personal attack three times at Wikimedia Common and got blocked for three days [14] and after that you taunted me at my talk page [15] because you're so pissed.  🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't change the topic to Wikimedia Commons. This discussion is currently being discussed on Wikipedia and has nothing to do with your comment. But if you still want to talk about it then alright this is the first personal attack I made. [16] and then I apologized for it, saying "I'm really sorry 😔" because I felt guilty and sorry for you, and wanted to end the argument. [17] but you still proceeded to put a clown emoji on me even after I apologized to you. [18] and that's why I got angry. After all this Oscar winning story. You decided to use my Wikimedia Commons quote on your user page without my permission. [19] Well done that's all I want to say about you. You have a genius mind so please use it correctly and be merciful. Kazama16 (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Boneless Pizza! If someone ask you not to mention or discuss them on your talk page, you generally should honor that. This is the type of conflict that can lead to interaction bans, and given your shared editing interests, that would be quite a burden for both of you.

@Kazama16 If I ever see anything like that talk page post to Commons, or a snarky post about grammar that was clearly an attack, on English Wikipedia again, you can expect an indefinite block. Shape up. We're not interested in this kind of behavior. I also suggest you fix your understanding of Youtube and license laundering in regards to Commons. It seems you were outright mistaken entirely, but CC-BY claims on YouTube require a critical eye to ensure the person claiming it is actually the copyright holder with authorization to make a release, and even then, they are still deleted in some cases when its beyond any doubt that a huge megacorporation would free license their main copyrights. -- ferret (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed you have removed my edit.

Hello @Ferret, ive seen you have removed my text from the Discord wiki. Please check the facts about the Discord raid/spam bots before you delete somethings which are correct. Wikil0ll3a (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As ferret mentioned in the edit summary, it was removed on the grounds of being unsourced, not because it was false. It also was written very informally - it didn't sound like an encyclopedia at all, it sounded like someone chatting it up with a buddy or something. Ferret was right to remove it, it wasn't appropriate as is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sergecross73

Ok. Wikil0ll3a (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to post some videos on the topic, but they're blacklisted. Wikil0ll3a (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Wikil0ll3a Details like this need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Many videos are user-generated and self-published, which are unreliable for use on Wikipedia. As a quick example of a reliable source that might cover Discord issues like this would be Wired magazine or ArsTechnica. -- ferret (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Need help with strange reverts from one obscure user

I was editing new content at the list of works based on Arthurian legends page.

I made 2 edits. but then I checked history and noticed a strange quick revert by one user. His account was old since 2016 but never made any edit before today. then suddenly, he started making reverts to many different topical pages including the one I worked in above and threatened me in my talk page with a typical warning message of vandalism.

See the revert edit from that user. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_works_based_on_Arthurian_legends&diff=1229816576&oldid=1229816508&variant=en

Also please check his recent history targeting other users with the same warning.

It is very strange. Does he seem to be trolling, or did someone hacked into his account? ObiKKa (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@ObiKKa The user has already been checkuser blocked by @Spicy. -- ferret (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. ObiKKa (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding edits on Diablo IV

Hello. I made some minor edits to the "Story" section and you undid them stating this reason: "Some of these changes are slight improvements, but a lot of them are wrong." Can you elaborate on what was wrong with my edits?

Thanks for your time. Atlas 184 (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Atlas 184 Some of the issues: a key figure in the plot, we don't really make statements like this. You added numerous double spaces after sentences which we also don't do, and moved punctuation and quotation marks in a way we don't do per our Manual of Style. Did you edit with some sort of grammar tool? They often get things wrong and aren't compatible with Wikipedia often. Grammarly in particular is bad. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I typed it in Word (I like to save the docs) then copied and pasted, which might explain the double spaces? Because I didn't purposely double-space it, so that's odd. I'll have to check my settings on Word. I moved the punctuation and quotation marks because that is how I was taught, but if that's the rule for Wikipedia, then that's understandable. "Some of the issues: a key figure in the plot, we don't really make statements like this." Is that stated anywhere in the rules regarding how we should make certain statements? That way I can avoid that in the future. Thanks for the input. Atlas 184 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Atlas 184: Generally you should say "key figure in the plot" only if reliable secondary sources also say so. In this case, it's a plot summary, where stuff like "key figure" is not just redundant (they're prominently mentioned, after all) but also a form of "emphatic language" which is usually discouraged per our Manual of Style (read this). You'll get the hang of this the more you edit and the more you read high-quality articles. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) (talk page watcher) 16:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Got another one for you

• J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I don't know who this might be, but my spidey sense is going off. Do you know anyone who's very interested in tagging game engines? I already ran a check because I thought it was Tkgood, and it's almost certainly not him. A few other accounts came up on the same IP, some of whom strike me as a bit spammy, but I'm still not sure what's going on. I guess I figure to just let it go and see what happens if you don't recognize this as a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate Doesn't immediately match any patterns I'm aware of. The logged out editing is obvious even without CU, but I don't see any crossing of paths with anyone I'm familiar with. -- ferret (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

References-related question

Hello Ferret! I am Amogh Tripathi. Remember, you blocked me for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" in June 2024? Anyways, since I am new and am not an very experienced editor, please tell me if images can be added as a reference or not? If yes, how? Waiting for your reply😊 Amogh Tripathi (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Amogh Tripathi Images are pretty poor as sources. There are some cases where you could use one, such as an image of a graph or perhaps an image from a study on an animal demonstrating it's appearance... but in almost all those cases, you could just reference the source containing the image. Image boards like imgur are WP:USERG and definitely unreliable though. -- ferret (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I might not use images as a reference already containing text (like a paragraph as you just mentioned). I asked this because sometimes credits for a game might not be readily available as a reliable source and if the credits are directly taken from a game as an image and then used as a reference, Wikipedia will become more informative. Also, please tell me how to add images as a reference because I have no knowledge about using images as a reference. Waiting for your reply😊 Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ferret, Why are you not helping me? Please reply. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Amogh Tripathi I already replied. I have never referenced an image, because you should reference the image's source instead. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Amogh Tripathi (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting Help

Sock blocked

Hello! So, today I had undone a non-neutral opinion on the Catalonia page done by someone who is under investigation for sock puppetry, and then they are claiming I am a “sockpuppet” just because I undid their edits restoring to a neutral stand point, not their edits of a non-neutral point. And the fact that I stated my opinion from doing my own little investigation, and then they fire back makes a negative look in my opinion. I felt I would bring this to your attention as your an admin. They had came into my own talk page just which makes it even worse and uncomfortable for me. Sincerely, SnowieLuna1212 (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC) You are a suspicious user. Panenkazo (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC) A Catalan pro-independentist who does this and this…………… We Caught it. Fake user with other purposes. Panenkazo (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I'm not getting involved in the content dispute. An SPI is already open and will run its course. -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) I have warned him on his talk page about his multi-reversions on the Catalunya page and he continues to revert content. It should be blocked by 33R Panenkazo (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I know this was closed but, I got a message from a random IP which I think you might wanna see… User talk:SnowieLuna1212#The Penfield Homunculus manifest..

Sincerely, SnowieLuna1212 (talk)

Thank you

I used to be on the account HTML5, CSS3, I acknowledge that I was bad and I vandalised. Thank you for banning me. It taught me the lesson, and now I am an established user who now reverts vandalism.

But please don't ban me for sockpuppetry now-have I vandalised any articles? ;)

P.S. why the page protection? I thought admins weren't supposed to protect any pages in their own userspace? Apollogetticax|^talk 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is still sockpuppetry. You're evading an active block. You're simply wrong about page protection, we can protect our pages for any normally valid reason. -- ferret (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Divine intervention

DivineWave just came off a one-week block I imposed for edit-warring, along with a couple of other things. Today I noticed a brand new user, Majestic Momentum, who posted at User talk:Austronesier#Vandalism alert, a thread begun by DW before the block. MM said to DW "I read your citations regarding david reich research. Interested in further discussions" and DW's response "what do you want to know regarding that?" All of this seems very odd to me. Add to that the similarity in usernames (Divine and Majestic - and Wave and Momentum), bad English, and editing platforms (mobile), and it makes it more suspicious. Finally, even before the creation of the new account, DW made a statement about which they were asked on their own Talk page: "this is not my first time. I been editing wikipedia since ages from other device. I just switched to a new one." Their response was, IMO, incoherent, but bottom line, if you are willing to run a check, you would be looking not only for a relationship between DW and MM but possibly other accounts. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Looks like @Dreamy Jazz is already on the case. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Saw this reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DivineWave and dealt with it there. I cannot provide comment on the IP, so that case is still open (in case someone here wants to investigate it). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I've closed the SPI without action against the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sock editing through IP's

Ferretivo/SwissArmyGuy has returned to editing under the IP 38.7.20.137. I noticed the similarly in editing patterns on Zelenskyy's navbox and recent edits. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Another IP, 103.140.188.217. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan Both blocked. He uses proxies so its whack a mole. -- ferret (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Hello Ferret, I'm contacting you in regards to a possible sockupuppet. There is a user named "Darthnote" who primarily edits track listings in music articles. Their track record of editing is eerily similar to a banned user named "EmeraldWicket9947". Throughout the years "EmeraldWicket9947" has created multiple accounts that are now blocked/banned. Whenever this user creates a new account they target music articles and edit track listings/album covers. A few accounts made by "EmeraldWicket9947" includes "Friendlyhelper9949". I might be wrong but could you look into this and see if "Darthnote" is "EmeraldWicket9947" A.K.A. "Friendlyhelper9949" A.K.A "BeDefining" etc. OkIGetIt20 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@OkIGetIt20  Confirmed and blocked. @ToBeFree just as info, this sleeper became active after you blocked the underlying IP. Might need more sweeping but I do not have time right now. @Ad Orientem as info. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@ferret "EmeraldWicket9947" A.K.A. "Friendlyhelper9949" A.K.A "BeDefining" etc is now back under the name "Theanchoviesaver". this user makes it obvious that it's them because they only edit tracklistings in music articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkIGetIt20 (talk • contribs)

@OkIGetIt20: Wanna clean up the latest sock, Grabthejuggle? -- ferret (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mass creation of non-notable articles

User:Beqwk immediately started creating large numbers of non-notable stub articles and barely-populated categories right after joining the site. Their instant knowledge of Wikipedia editing (and using "inside" terms like "non-notable" on their first edit) strikes me as odd and meriting some sort of check. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I've looked into this and there is no CU action to perform. Issues with their stubs and categories will need to go through normal processes/channels. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, understood. It's a bit daunting where to start given that nearly everything they have made so far is non-notable though, or should probably not be a standalone article. If they get blocked for disruption, which it seems they might, perhaps some large scale reversion of their edits can be enacted? Otherwise I'll see about PRODing or deleting them via AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Zxcvbnm: Generally you'd need a clear AN/ANI consensus for that, and I doubt that would be easier to get than just PRODing or AfDing them, especially for the relatively small number of page creations here. Also, not sure all these pages even should be deleted. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Category user

While we're at it, User:QuantumFoam66 has been engaging in disruptive editing. Not only constantly nominating perfectly fine long-standing categories like Category:Killzone for deletion, then usually backtracking or saying the reverse of what they initially suggested, but deleting all the legitimate complaints on their talk page with the summary "nobody cares". While a few of their nominations were somewhat correct, they are clearly exhibiting WP:NOTHERE behavior and it's getting to be too much to manage, CfD wise, and warning them is pointless due to aforementioned scrubbing of their talkpage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I left them a message. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

You recently blocked 2402:ad80::/40 however it turns out that they are evading their block from this range( 2402:ad80:139::/48 or 2402:AD80:130:0:0:0:0:0/44), see this chain of edits Ratnahastin (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Be polite

I don’t like your tone with me on the Blizzard page. Please, be respectful. If I’m wrong you can correct me but keep your sarcasm to yourself. Thanks PaulUsuloo (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@PaulUsuloo Stop editing logged out every time someone reverts you for your unsourced edits then. There's a long pattern here of disruption here. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You undid correct information about King. Go check LinkedIn and see for yourself. PaulUsuloo (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

King.com

Just so we're on the same page, https://king.com/ redirects to https://www.king.com/ on all devices and browsers I tested this on, not the other way around. Does it do the opposite for you? Either way, since both variants work, this is not something I deeply care to fight about, so we can leave it as-is. IceWelder [✉] 13:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@IceWelder Hmm. I'm using Chrome, and it displays just king.com. If I click on that, it remains just king.com. But if I click a second time, it changes to https://www.king.com/. Kind of obscured. My bad on that one. When you're having to revert numerous bad edits.... -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I had my fair share of mass editors, so I can definitely relate to that. I don't know why Chrome chooses to visibly truncate the protocol and subdomain only if it is `www.`, I only recall there were negative reactions to the change when it was introduced. You will notice that it still copies the correct URL even while it is truncated. Luckily, Firefox renders URLs properly, since those 11 characters really aren't expensive. IceWelder [✉] 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)