User talk:Ferret/Archive 6

Hi Ferret, would you be able to help clarify something on Parade (Prince album), perhaps protect if necessary? The genres of jazz and soul are sourced, but the user Gentlecollapse6 is claiming that because the source says it is a blend of "jazz, soul, [...]" that it cannot be reduced to either. These genres have been included on the page as sourced for months, perhaps years. I have asked them to take it to the talk page if they disagree with the stable version, but they appear uninterested in doing so. Not sure what else I can do. Thank you. Ss112 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Starting off with a talk page section and ping. Be aware no one is "right" in an edit war, and take care not to violate 3RR yourself. If the user continues and refuses to come to the table, I'll take further action. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) I mean, they should follow WP:BRD, sure, but if I'm looking at things right, they've only reverted twice and there has been zero talk page discussion. Not be be rude, but you're at 2 reverts, and zero discussion, and as an editor of over a decade, you don't know what to do? Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: My experience has been that the user who disagrees with the content should start the discussion; to me, WP:BRD certainly implies this. I don't have an issue with the genres' inclusion; Gentlecollapse6 does. Also, I said "Not sure what else I can do". This does not mean I was not sure on how to start a discussion. It meant I don't know what else I can do to get them to stop, because they appear to not want to discuss their issue with it. Ss112 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, dispute mediation starts with "Is there a discussion?". I can't really take any action without some notice or warning to the editors involved. With neither editor having created a discussion, I also can't weigh in on the topic without starting one myself. To weigh in and help establish a consensus, I need to know both sides of the dispute. That's why opening a discussion and pinging you both is my first step (As well as pointing you to the WikiProjects that could offer an informed third party opinion on the topic of music genres). -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that it would be fruitful to engage in a back-and-forth debate with the user, who knows what my position is. Surely this does not mean that if a user who reverted the bold change does not discuss, the content they disputed the removal of can then be removed because they are unwilling to debate it? I feel BRD says the user wanting the change should take the initiative (although yes, I know it does not have to be this way), and gain consensus for their change (with other users, to gauge general feelings about it, as consensus can hardly be reached by two editors who disagree with each other). I just don't see that this requires the continued input of the editor who (initially) reverted their bold change. Ss112 13:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Starting a discussion is always the first step, even if you don't think its likely to go anywhere, just to show that you're trying to do things the right way, and they're not. As Ferret says, no Admin should be taking any sort of action on what you've suggested. Yes, that other person should be the one to start the discussion, but if they won't, then you should. And if they refuse to participate, notify the Wikiproject for further input. If they continue to refuse to participate still, and there's an active consensus against, then some page protection or blocking would be in order. If I'm misunderstanding things, I apologize, but the situation appeared to be that you had done nothing other than argue through edit summaries, and were now asking for guidance on the next step. We can't help you if that's all the effort you're putting into it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Pages can be protected due to disruptive editing from any editor, to prevent edit wars, can they not? That's what I meant. Anyway, my position has been made known on the talk page; I don't intend to continue debating at this point, because if Gentlecollapse6 comments, that's just a back-and-forth argument and consensus cannot be reached that way. I get what you're saying, and I do think, yes, in cases where they refuse to do so, the user who reverted the bold change should probably initiate the discussion. However, as I am not the user who disagrees with the preceding/stable version of the page, which due to disagreement (the revert) requires consensus to change, I don't feel the talk page discussion requires my further input. Ss112 13:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

2 reverts and zero talk page discussion does not warrant page protection yet though, especially when we're not even dealing with vandalism. (Regardless of whether or not the other editor is following BRD, or right or wrong, the edits do seem to be in good faith.) You're free to feel that no further talk page is warranted, but you're also basically giving up any chance of anyone intervening either. It doesn't matter if you take this to other admin, AN3, ANI, or wherever else, the response is going to be the same - "did you discuss on the talk page?" If the answers no, the only response you'll get is "Discuss on talk page first". Discussing on talk pages prior to administrative actions being made is as much of a part of protocol as following BRD is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: That's all fine, but did Ferret not just say up above if Gentlecollapse6 doesn't contribute to the talk page and continues removing the genres, he'll take further action? Something should be done (i.e. an admin reverting them to tell them "hey, stop") if the user continues after they've been told to discuss. Ss112 15:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And that's where we sit now. Until Gentlecollapse6 replies or reverts again, there's nothing to do. If they never reply or revert, the topic is also closed. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Precisely. I was describing where we're at now, not what may happen on certain conditions in the future. But yes, I'll stop responding here -sorry for the back-and-forth on your talk page, ferret. Ss112, you may discuss further on my talk page if you like, though I don't think I have much else to say personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hah no problem Serge. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at WP:ANI#Requesting for indefinite interaction ban between me, and two other users; intimidation. involving you. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret, I see you reverted my edit of Xbox One sales. I was very deliberate to only edit the listing which had a comment requiring a reputable source, which I included. I have commented on the current talk page discussion. Can you point me to the discussion where a consensus was found about this exceptional standard for inclusion? Dbsseven (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dbsseven: Will reply on talk page. -- ferret (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying really hard to assume good faith. Can we agree that the article is about a person who is widely agreed to be both a) abusive and b) a troll? I can find plenty of sources for this, and I'm sure you can too. Given that, does it not seem problematic that the page does not even have so much as a 'controversy' section? Right now, the page looks remarkably like a press release. That is to say, there is nothing resembling editorial objectivity in the page as it stands - it's a puff piece. The very fact that it has to be semi-protected because there are so many people that viscerally despise the man seems like a strong hint to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waywocket (talk • contribs) 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of public figures are rightfully or wrongly disdained. In this cases, it's not covered by any reliable secondary sources though, and that's what Wikipedia reports. Your edits are clearly meant to be disruptive and biased, as no one would write that "Claims that Persson has a heart remain unsubstantiated' as legitimate encyclopedic content. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

the database report lists transclusions of deleted templates. since "Template:Country data Atlanta" was deleted it appears in the report, while "Template:Country data Atlantis" never existed so would not appear in the report unless someone created it and deleted it. so, your comment concerning the database report is not correct. however, thank you for commenting out the transclusion of the deleted template. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Ah, that makes sense. Either way, the test case doesn't need to be active right now, and need to keep it in the mind in the future. :) -- ferret (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Ferret, I see you blocked that IP user a few hours ago for various reasons. He eventually removed your block notice, which I just restored, however, it seems like he simply undid my edit? It appears that they are slowly driving into madness, also in regards to their edit summary "fuck off, cunt." not appearing quite constructive to the manor. Is there a way from hindering blocked user to remove valid notices that are for the next administrator to block them (e.g. you put a 31h ban on, and later realized that they were blocked before and enlenghted it to 2w)? Either way, should the comment given in said edit (also quoted above) increase his ban span? Lordtobi (✉) 07:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Users are free to remove block notices. They cannot remove unblock requests though. See WP:OWNTALK. As for moving for a 31h to 2w, that was my fault. I pressed the button too quickly and didn't read the block log. We can see the blocks without looking at their talk page. We can remove talk page access as well if needed, but it's not really warranted here, they are just blanking which they are allowed. As for increasing the block, won't serve much good as they've moved to a second IP now (Also blocked). -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I was aware of owntalk, but I didn't know it cover "vandals may hide their warnings, so maybe other editors won't see" (not everyone checks page histories). Regarding the length, the secondary IP has a 6m block, while the original only currently has 2w, effectively he can use it as soon as it expires, block evading the other. Lordtobi (✉) 18:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: I bumped it to 6 months. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Lordtobi (✉) 18:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I need 100% clarification on this, if a company has had more than one parent, do you just display the present parent company or all the parent companies of the subsidiary? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iftekharahmed96: Best to ask at Template Talk:Infobox company for a wider view. I can't say I have a strong opinion, but the current documentation says "The name(s) of the current and former parent companies." This would suggest a historical listing is allowed, but in many cases people feel that Infoboxes should convey the pertinent information of the current state. I.e. list the current (or last) parent, and let the prose cover the rest. In most cases, I just focus on cleaning up misuse of owner/parent, only one of which should be used at a time, as they are mutually exclusive in purpose. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

A secondary thought though, the template documentation just says "The name(s)" and the example is a single name. No example or direction is given on how to show date ranges or sequence of parents. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding almost immediately. This has really helped me out! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

...on how long before we indef-block idiots who pull crap like " it’s technically not my signature"? [2] EEng 02:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: I hesitate to indef someone over signatures. I wanted to ensure that it was clear that these forms of trying to "circumvent" it and pretend it's not a signature isn't going to fly. As far as I'm concerned, the next one can be indef if he pulls more nonsense. -- ferret (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Seconded, for what its worth. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not just the signatures. It's the relentless IDHT over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over on every trivial subject. He doesn't archive threads on his talk page which reflect badly on him, so you have to look in talk page history for edits with negative byte counts. He's wasted incalculable amounts of editor time lawyering over trivia. First it was his errant nonsense about how dashes are used. Then months later he resumed that. In between he edit-warred to modify or collapse others' comments, or modify his own comments after others had responded to them, on various talk pages, ANI, etc. Then something else and something else and somethign else. Now this signature nonsense. It never ends with him. EEng 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

All I can offer at this time is that I'll be watching after the current block. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really all I was suggesting. EEng 14:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you consider Steam Spy unreliable that's your choice. But I think it's completely not fair that the game isn't on the list at all. Like not even among the 1million sold games. I just compared the Steam Spy for other titles in the list and it's mostly right, maybe it's a couple million higher for some but that doesn't change the fact. I'm not asking you to allow CS:GO to be the number one game, sure it doesn't have to be. But ateast include it somewhere in the list, it's clear that the game has high sales figures. Even if you take half of what Steam Spy says, it's still in the top 10. And there's not a single game on that list where Steam Spy would be so wrong that you'd have to take half of the number mind you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviMon (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@DeviMon: It's not a matter of "deserves" to be listed or not. SteamSpy is not a reliable source for sales figures. It is an estimate of copies owned on Steam. It includes free copies, bundled copies, gift copies, etc. It also varies from hundreds of thousands to millions with each run, as the estimate is built from only a sample of users, not all of them. Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable in reliable sources. Steam Spy isn't, and even if it was, it's not an estimate of sales, but of "copies owned". SteamSpy's own About Us page warned about this and states to not use it as reliable figure of sales. Unfortunately, because Valve doesn't release sales figures, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to add CS:GO to the list. -- ferret (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, a valve that won't release is really problematic, especially where steam is involved. EEng 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello I have finished doing the FIFA 18 article now I just have the draft I need help your to move it in its right full place from the draft. I checked the history and i have see that you locked it. Icem4k (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Icem4k: Moved over redirect. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! ferret. Icem4k (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Ferret. This is a bit of a left field request, however, I feel as though your insight into the situation would be able to put this debate into consensus. Basically, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media (hereon DCPI) is a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company that specialists in consumer products (e.g: toys) and interactive media (e.g: video games). The formation of the company was the merging of Disney Interactive and Disney Consumer Products. The outcome was that Disney Consumer Products and Disney Interactive were subsidised under DCPI (like how Sega Sammy was formed whilst still maintaining the legal entities of Sega and Sammy Corporation). However, the page provides an infobox for Disney Consumer. This wouldn't be a problem until you see that the website for Disney Consumer redirects to Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, likewise, the same occurs for the Disney Interactive website. The issue is whether to maintain the infobox of Disney Consumer in the DCPI page, or make a standalone article for Disney Consumer as there is enough information to warrant such an article split. The conversation is in talk:Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media if you want more context. Thanks for your help. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article in question and haven't read the talk page discussion, but I've noticed here and elsewhere that you seem to be viewing infoboxes as far more important than they warrant. Infoboxes are used to summarize key information, not define the topic. There is no rule that a page can only have one infobox, or that it must be a specific "type" of infobox. You use the infobox that provides the most pertinent information about the topic. In the general question of DCPI verses DCP: Is there reliable secondary sourcing that warrants (for notability) that DCP have a separate article? If not, then it's perfectly fine for the little sourcing that exists to be used to cover the topic at DCPI, which is clearly related as the current parent company (and/or successor). And it's ok to have a second infobox to discuss that predecessor entity. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I was always under the assumption that an article can only have one Infobox. From what I can see with the official press releases, DCPI made Disney Consumer Products and Disney Interactive as divisions after the merger. Problem is, there's no citation about Disney Consumer Products still existing as a legal entity ever since Disney Interactive and Disney Interactive Studios dissolved as legal entities, but I suppose I can find that out through extensive research. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you remove my entry on the PCMasterRace subreddit. It has contributed greatly to the resubmergence of PC gaming imo Infospazm (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Infospazm (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Infospazm: Hi, your edit to PC game was removed because it was unnecessary or undue in the article. As big as they are, PCMR haven't contributed that much to the gaming society, it'd be safe to say that the average gamer, leave-alone reader, would care about a subreddit based around PC gaming. This is also why we don't mention /r/pcgaming, /r/gaming, etc. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

How do I delete entries? Infospazm (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Anarchyte covered this pretty well. Social sites like subreddits generally don't have nearly enough influence or coverage to be worth mentioning, let alone in the lead and with grand claims that they saved PC gaming. -- ferret (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article: Let's Move! Flash Workout has a merge proposal since 2015. I think it should be merged with Let's Move!. How do we or I go forward with this since it's been so long? Thanks! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: Not too big of a deal. Just add a subsection to Let's Move! for "Flash Workout" (Maybe under Physical Activity section), with the content from that article. Trim it down a bit for things that are already covered in the primary article. Then redirect the Flash Workout article to that section. No admin action needed here, you can boldly do it since no one has contested the idea of a merger in so long. -- ferret (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do it a little later :) --Jennica✿ / ^talk 11:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran#Crowdfunding. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you help discuss Talk:.hack//G.U.. You previously dealt with the undiscussed split, I think you should be involved in the discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a bit of admin intervention as the scam-promoters are reverting edits which remove blockchain entries, contrary to consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.16.247.184 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Back in June, you gave this user a fairly stern warning. And since then, this user someone recently reported them to WP:AIV for their actions. Since this is likely not obvious vandalism, and WP:AIV may not be the correct venue to report this user at. Would you mind taking a look into this user's edits. Since you warned them before, you may have an idea of what the issues/problems may be. Thanks. 116.199.251.222 (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

While I have reverted other edits by the user recently, my warning was particular to misuse of infobox company fields type, parent and owner. As far as I can tell, the user has not made those types of edits since my warning. The user thanked one of my reverts after my last warning, and I consider that acknowledgement that they have read the warnings. A lot of this editor's edits end up reverted but many of them stick. If you feel the user needs a deeper review as being a net negative, you might try ANI? @Lordtobi: this is in response to your AIV posting it seems. -- ferret (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Truly, I have reverted this user too often already, and that over a span of months, if not years. As the user is reluctant to any kind of communication, and as they should by now be aware of the issues produced through their edits (unsourced content, removal of sourced content, not using edit summary, ever!), you would expect the situation to cool down, however, they still refuse to properly part-take in the community or consider their own edits in regards to previous reverions on oh so many cases. I sought analysis by an administrator over on AIV, who then only pointed out that they didn't receive stale warnings in a longer period of time; I feel that this is the result of editor acknowledging that the user has been here for a while and attempt a discussion instead of warning the user, which has failed every time since 2014. For that particular reason, and becaue I was re-awared of this user today, reverting faulty edits on at least 15 pages (just today!), I took to giving them warnings, in three occasions of unsourced additions, where appropriate in the hope that it works as a wake-up call, though I did not want to reach a level 4 warning yet to not make it feel like gunpoint. It might not be the best option, but seeing massive failure in communication, it might be the only one at current state, so let's just hope that realize their disruptive behaviour and cease such edits in the future, or at least in the masses as it is currently. Lordtobi (✉) 20:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

WPVG is one of the more advanced parts of enwp for Wikidata integration thanks to you and @Izno. Before I raise it with the project, I wanted to ask both of your opinions on the possibility of moving the project's ratings to Wikidata. Wikidata appears to be better equipped to handle intersections and list generation, whereas our whole talk page-based tagging system and reliance on quality-based categories seems like a hack in comparison. Though phasing out the latter is a long ways off, the start would be using Wikidata to store and change quality/importance data for the project, no? Is this something you feel might be a good idea, and would you be interested in working on it? czar 20:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good fit for Wikidata. Essentially, we would not be storing information about the topic, but on enwiki's article of the topic. I'm not nearly as familiar with Wikidata data's policies as Izno, but this strikes me as something they would be against. In particular though, since the quality ratings are completely specific to enwiki, I'm not sure there's any value to the rest of the wikipedia world. Wikidata does have markers for FA and GA in the site links area, but I don't believe it's constructed to handle anything else. I'm also not entirely sure it gains anything. We set quality/importance in a template, or set it in Wikidata, it's still something we set, case by case, item by item. The only advantage would be the ability (presumably) to run queries on Wikidata. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Wikidata has already rejected storing this information there, as it's too project-specific. The way quality would be done is with the d:Help:Badges system as ferret notes, which presently supports some limited quality ratings. I don't remember/really know how many teeth were pulled for badges. I have no idea how priority would be done except with new properties. (Statements are not for metadata but for the item topic itself, as much as possible, so management of priority would certainly be rejected regardless of the overall rejection. Additionally, priority suffers from the even-worse problem of being WikiProject and not simply project-specific.)

On this topic, you will probably be interested in the thread at WT:WikiProject Council/Archive_22#Overhaul of article assessments and especially its subsection at WT:WikiProject Council/Archive_22#Some relevant technical changes in the pipeline regarding the PageAssessments extension. I don't know where that work is at in implementation but I do believe some limited functionality is live now. There is highly-related work being done by the Wikidata team to support Structured Data at Wikimedia Commons with mediawikiwiki:Multi-Content Revisions which PageAssessments will undoubtedly use at some point.

Regarding queries today, the Wikidata team recently made the Mediawiki databases available in their query engine in a very limited capacity. I don't know enough about the capabilities there. Review d:WD:Project_chat/Archive/2017/06#Mediawiki_API_Service_for_WDQS and if you think that's something to start with today, go bug them some on d:WD:PC, d:WD:RAQ, or d:WD:DEV. Otherwise, you might go chat with Magnus Manske to see if WP:Petscan can do queries and intersections today. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. PageAssessments looks useful, though it appears to be down right now. I'll keep on it. (Also I still don't quite understand why it was better to create a separate database structure than to work with Wikidata, but it looks like progress has already been made in the other direction.) czar 20:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: I just used Special:PageAssessments and it worked fine. Your mileage may apparently vary. :D

Some of it is sound UI design IMO: We should try to make the changes closest to where they are relevant. In this case, quality and priority assessments are most-relevant to the wikis making them.

The rest of it is political or socio-technical: Wiki users don't like using Wikidata. Some of that is: different (but not really) sourcing requirements; editing experience is unfamiliar and they aren't willing to learn (not everyone is a digital native or uses software regularly enough); they just don't want to deal with going to a different wiki than their home wiki.; they don't like having to stay off their home wiki to watch for vandalism (or good changes); those users believe it's additional work to add information to Wikidata. There might be others.

Some of both of the above design requirements could be fixed with gadgets or whatnot, but then a) you disenfranchise some editors who don't have access to Javascript and b) you have to develop certain software which may not be in your core set of functionality. (Wikidata team also has project milestones and the like because of how much of their money comes from external donors directly.) MCR is a big deal in this regard because it enables technology like Structured Commons Metadata... but perhaps I speak too long on the topic. In the end, I happen to believe it's the right decision to put this stuff on the wikis rather than on Wikidata (and you can probably dig for my opposition on Wikidata about hosting project-specific information there :D). --Izno (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, ferret. So should I remove "the" from PlayStation 3/4 game articles? Because Favre1fan93 again added "the" in other articles. Pure conSouls (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: Your edits are currently be discussed at WT:VG. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sir. I was editing this page and was in the process of straightening out the entire List of Capcom games section. I left them unsourced because I was planning to do that afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Capcom_games:_0%E2%80%93D

Lacon432 (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lacon432: This was my mistake, I edited the wrong version. I meant to remove only a single entry entered by an IP. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I undid the page back to my version if you want to re-edit it. Lacon432 (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Attempting to avoid wheel warring with MSGJ, see User_talk:MSGJ#PapiDimmi. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't go on what I say, but my guess is that extending another admin's block wouldn't be ww'ing. (If A blocked indef then reduced it to a week, and then B changed it back to indef, that might be different.) But we've waited this long -- what's one more round? But please, let this be the last reprieve. There's a certain breed of editor with a talent for dragging out the inevitable via pleas of naivete. EEng 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

–Sb2001 ^{talk page} 18:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

–Sb2001 ^{talk page} 18:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Did anyone mention that there are new messages at Sb2001's talk page? EEng 19:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, User:EEng! They were two separate messages. –Sb2001 ^{talk page} 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

HEY Ferret , why u reverted my 2 edits in the article of FIFA 18 . I know some of the hyperlinks I added r unecessary , but most of them aren't . Answer plz !! TDLWH (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

TDLWH Reading WP:OVERLINK, as ferret mentioned in his edit summary, should clear up your questions on that. Short version - you don't link to the same article repeatedly, and you don't link to basic concepts (like September - most people know what that is. You don't need to link to that. It won't be of use to most readers.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey :Sergecross73 I didn't ask u, I asked Ferret , and I am sure he has a mouth and tongue so he can speak . So plz don't speak instead him , OK ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDLWH (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ferret and I often field questions posted on each other's talk pages. It's a pretty common occurrence on Wikipedia between editors who tend to work together. I'll gladly let you talk to him about it, but he's just going to say the exact same thing I told you (...which was the exact same thing he already told you.) Best of luck learning the basics. I'll leave you be. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Serge already covered it, but I think my edit note was pretty clear explanation on it's own. -- ferret (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret , i have a small quistion . If i have written an article in my draft , who will check it and put it with other articles of Wikipedia , and when ? . Answer plz ?? ^_^ TDLWH (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@TDLWH: Check out WP:AFC. Editors who work in AFC will review drafts that have been submitted to be created. If the draft is good to go, they will move it to be an article. If there are issues, they will leave a message explaining what needs to be improved before the article can be accepted. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes when I've done it like that, the admin did both the deletion and move. Thought that was going to happen... ViperSnake151  Talk  00:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: No problem, wasn't sure if something was missed or if I misread the intent. The IP's edits drew my eye to it. -- ferret (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I need some clarification on how the policy on YouTube sourcing works, as I am currently questioning this diff on Sonic Forces. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: It's important to view Youtube not as a source itself, but as simply a host for sources. What must be evaluated is the channel that posted the video. In this case, it's an official and verified channel for the Sonic franchise. It is a primary source, which means apply the usual care when writing about primary sources, but it is not inherently unreliable. As a similar example, if the official Nintendo channel on Youtube announces a new game and release date, that is a valid source for that information. -- ferret (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you also look at Splatoon 2? IPs and users keep adding additional credits to the infobox and sourcing a YouTube video which I also question whether it can be used. One user mentioned spoilers too. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: The game itself and it's credits are a primary source. The Youtube itself isn't being used as a source so much as a way to show you the credits. For the directors, this was probably fine. However, for composer, adding just 2 of the 6 people listed for sound is inappropriate (Why stop at those 2?). Either way, per infobox documentation, we only list lead/director/senior type positions. Toru Minegishi is sourced as sound director, so the others shouldn't be listed. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This page popped up in new page creations and it is... odd looking. I've never seen a page like this. Laura Jackson (TV presenter). The person appears to be editing her own article and last Thursday was notified and sort of warned about it. What is the next step since they ignored those warnings? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, do you think Tarantula (Dylan book) should be moved to Tarantula (book)? The book one is a redirect I cannot move it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Jimfbleak has deleted the article. If the user starts recreating it or continues, feel free to let me know. As for Tarantula (book), it appears to have been moved to "(Dylan book)" under the logic that Tarantula (novel) is also a book. They were trying to be more specific with the disamb. -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ferret; Jennica FWIW, I've also nominated the image for speedy deletion. It's attributed to the Sunday Times and therefore won't be free to use Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry about my discussion in Pro Evolution Soccer 2018 talk page . I think I am the most reverted editor in the English Wikipedia ^_^ TDLWH (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hardly that. Just make sure you read the edit notes, most of us will explain why and you'll gain more knowledge on wikipedia editing. You're not causing any trouble, it's not like you're vandalizing articles. -- ferret (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent job on fixing revision problems and protecting against vandalism. I've been working on a wiki like project that is a for profit venture, and had a question for you. If this were your full time job, what do you think the pay should be based on? Hourly or Salaried? Would it be in the 10.00 an hour range (20,000) or 25.00 an hour (50,00)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiroSakuraba (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've no idea what paid editing or maintenance of a Mediawiki would warrant at a for profit venture. Employee or contractor, etc? Mediawiki is not maintenance heavy so I guess it would depend on what content the for profit wants and how much time it is taking to maintain. You might consider researching tech writer pay levels. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Even after you made the post on the talk page of the rumor for Xbox One, there's an IP that's jumping the gun on the news and I fear that more will come. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: I wouldn't call it disruptive just yet. Make sure you let people know why they are reverted, hopefully EA will announce it soon. Seems like it's real but MS jumped the gun... but you never know, and the final announcement may include more platforms. Also, double check your signature, your talk page still links to your old name. :) -- ferret (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You reverted 3 edits I made to List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games citing NintendoEverything being an unreliable source. I take no issue with that for the most recent one, but it was only the 3rd edit that used that source. The previous two - updates to the incorrect PAL dates already listed - were Nintendo Life/Nintendo.co.uk and Nintendo.co.uk, respectively. I assumed Nintendo Life was valid, as the original citation was also from this source and has been there for a while.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jibbitt (talk • contribs) 15:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jibbitt: I only meant to undo the last one. I see you already restored the other two, I would have if you hadn't. -- ferret (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted to explain myself rather than having a faceless revert war develop or something! Thanks. :) Jibbitt (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ferret for understanding and supporting my point! I really appreciate it and thankful to you from the bottom of my heart. 😁 Pure conSouls (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: Please understand one thing though. I am merely pointing out a bit of policy, in that you are allowed to remove warnings from your talk page. That does not mean the warnings are unwarranted, and WP:OWNTALK states that removing warnings counts on your part as acknowledging the warning. I highly advise you to review the warnings you've been given and adjust your editing behaviors to avoid more. -- ferret (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, I will be more careful regarding this type of matters in the future. You really helped me few days before regarding "the" matter and now again here and on wikiproject video game regarding the "Year" matter. And about the warning, when I got the warning the next thing I did was to visit the project for clarification on this and after that I removed the warning from my talk page. Thanks again ☺ Pure conSouls (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, man, my mistake. I mistakenly thought the plot section was supposed to be a more detailed synopsis. I just made a few minor grammatical changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmuricanPatriot (talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@AmuricanPatriot: No problem. The general rule of thumb is to try to stay under 700 words, maybe 1000 if pushing it. We want to highlight the important details without overwhelming the article with a very long and detailed plot. -- ferret (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen.rex. I believe this is another sock of Lurulu. Multiple edits on a Yes band page, Rolling Stones, telltale edit summaries matching the MO of their socks. Period in their name like their socks. Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lurulu. Hopefully you can block them again! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: I think we should take this one to SPI. I'm pretty positive that it's Lurulu, but it might be time to have SPI do a search for other sleeper accounts and any that we have missed. They might also be able to put together a range block from all the accounts that have been used this year. @KrakatoaKatie and Bbb23: Would either of you be willing to take a look? -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lurulu's SPI is stale, but Stephen.rex is confirmed to Upper.class (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Celtic.fanatic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I don't see any sleepers, other than a couple of accounts that did not complete the registration process. If they become active, they're easy enough to block. Unfortunately, there's too much collateral for a rangeblock. Watch for the username pattern, too. Katie^talk 09:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Thanks! I was pretty sure Stephen.rex was a match, but we've been playing whack-a-mole here all year. -- ferret (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello once again. He has another sock Folk.pilgrim. Telltale username format with the period in the middle, editing on Malicorne (band) with familiar edit summaries [explanation point at the end] and also their editing style, over detailed. Hopefully they can be blocked yet again, since they will never stop. Thanks! --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ferret on World in Conflict. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Closed, no violation. -- ferret (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey,

Just asking you this but... erm... Isn't that a bit excessive, the layout you did with the gameplay section of the article in which you divided up all aspects into their own section, and then added in more information? I think someone might consider it original research, to be honest.GUtt01 (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@GUtt01: I merely rearranged it, all of the content was already in the article. I am now performing a trim and condensing. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This editor User talk:173.170.159.16 who you warned back in May is again removing sourced genres from Persona 4 Arena and Persona 4 Arena Ultimax because they personally disagree with them. It's just that one IP that does it, so I'm guessing the articles themselves don't need to be locked unless the editor starts to come back with different IPs.--IDV^talk 21:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@IDV: Blocked 2 weeks. Unfortunately I can't really start off with a long term block, but just maybe this will get their attention. One can hope. -- ferret (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, that's fine - I don't really care for "punishing" users with long blocks, I just want problems to be solved. We'll see what they do, I guess, hopefully it works out.--IDV^talk 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret,

Thanks for your suggestion about our study. I have made some improvements in our system based on the feedback of our last discussion. I wonder if you personally would like to participate our study? Just want to double check. No pressure :). Please let me know. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: I've thought about it. If you just plan to send me some editors the system has chosen so I can provide feedback on how well it did, sure. -- ferret (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank! Yes, we will have three short survey questions to ask you for each of our recommendations, and we will see if participants will actually reach those editors (we will provide a semi-auto template to help the process) :) Bobo.03 (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bobo.03: The following has come up in another discussion about tracking members and the member list on the project page. May be useful to you, it is BOT generated: Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Video games. -- ferret (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks for letting me know! Yes, I am aware of it. I know the person who wrote this bot. We are using similar heuristics and methods to identify the list. However, our system has implemented couple more complicated algorithms for recommendations. The recommendation table I posted earlier is the simplest one in our system (which is similar to what the bot generates) :) Bobo.03 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Union Cane is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union Cane until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ferret. The wikidata was showing incorrect numbers (89, 89, 88) that's why I thought to change it manually Pure conSouls (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pure conSouls: Someone vandalized them a few days back. I reverted it. -- ferret (talk) 10:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello ferret. Since you have been very helpful in my time on this encyclopedia so far, I would like to request some feedback. Just recently, I got a message stating my Good Article nomination of Anthrocon was in progress, and at the moment, I am doing my best to respond to this review by providing as many reliable sources as I can. Is there anything I can do to the article or future articles I nominate for GA that can help me improve? Thanks in advance.   jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: The framework your GA reviewer has used, with a list of criteria that must be checked off, is pretty much the standard process. If you want to do more GA in the future, it would be a good idea to take that list of criteria and go through it yourself before starting the GA process. For example, the sourcing brought up in that review would jump out immediately to any reviewer, and is likely the biggest stumbling block a GA might face. Additionally, there is a Peer Review process that you could do before trying GA. This essentially is a way to ask other editors to check over the article in preparation for going towards GA or FA. I think you're already aware of it. The main thing is to review the GA criteria and make sure you have a solid understand of what reviewers will expect. If it's missing, they will fail it. Reading GA reviews for other articles, both passed and failed, may also be useful. -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Although oriented to video games, so take it with a grain of salt in other topic areas, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment may also be informative. -- ferret (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Is this him again? Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yup. Blocked. Hoax deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: @Sergecross73: Another one by the looks of it. Adam9007 (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the contribs of Quilted 10? I'm pretty sure that's a VillegasD2002 sock, but I'd like a second opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hmmmm. Tough call. Not a ton of overlap so far, a couple articles. No use of edit notes so can't draw a conclusion there. Entirely mobile, while David Villegas seems to switch back and forth. If it's him, there's a new behavior: Adding stuff and tagging it CN himself. I'd probably try a CU before deciding. Behavior isn't quite a solid call to me here. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Added to the SPI. I wasn't aware of some of the more recent socks, if I had I think I would have agreed with you more strongly. A sleeper check probably won't hurt though. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret. I'm having an issue with the user 1Sire, who I have asked to take their disagreement with Vice calling a song by the rapper Cardi B a single to the talk page of that article, but they have refused to do so. I reverted their edit days ago, and I thought the issue was over until earlier, when they wrote an edit summary with the assertion that Vice is somehow a "random website"(??) and that apparently, songs need to be sent to radio or an artist needs to call a song a single before it is—but they have no source to back up their opinion that it is just a song. Can you ask them to discuss this before undoing again? I really don't want a slow-motion edit war with this, or any editor. I have already sent 1Sire two messages on their talk page, but they did not respond and merely restored their changes with a summary for an explanation. I understand I could open the discussion on the article talk page myself, but I usually leave this to the user who disagrees with the sourced content that is there. Ss112 01:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: Start a talk page discussion. Content should be discussed on article talk pages, not edit notes and user pages. In particular, user talks are "invisible" to other editors watching the article. Ping the other editor. If they refuse to participate and edit war, then I could take action. Do the legwork though yourself and attempt to establish a consensus on the article's talk page. Its always easier for admins to take action if suitable discussion has already occurred. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it required that sourced content that is being questioned by other editors be removed from articles until a consensus is reached on its suitability for inclusion, or is it fine to stay up? As you suggested, I've opened a discussion, but personally in situations like this I prefer commenting or putting what I think out there once and not necessarily coming back to argue my point over and over. Ss112 02:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess the main thing I'm trying to point out is that the long talk page messages you left the user, and me, would have been a fine start to a discussion at the article's talk page. Other editors may (or may not) support your position, and it acts to establish a history on why something was removed or kept. If you've made the effort to start a discussion and the user refuses the participate and keeps warring, then other avenues such as mediation, dispute resolution, EWN, etc, can be followed. Those all basically require evidence that discussion was attempted. It also helps if this topic ever comes up again later, since we can point back to the previous discussion. -- ferret (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, my concern is that they've restored their edits to the article without so much as a source. We have multiple sources calling a song a single, and this user insists on their "educated opinion" that the song is not one, despite not providing a source for their claim. Can you not revert them until the discussion has finished, as I'm the one who opened it for their issue with sourced information? Isn't restoring their edit while a discussion is ongoing warring? Also, they've personally attacked me here. Ss112 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Give it a few days, if they don't reply to your discussion, revert it again and refer to the talk page in the edit note. This is a content dispute, where the two sides are arguing the validity of a source for this particular piece of information. In effect, his side is that there is an absence of valid (reliable) sourcing for the fact (I.e. the content fails WP:V), and that's why he doesn't have a source for "their claim". From a pure policy standpoint, he is not making an invalid argument. Whether or not Vice is valid for this content is something to hash out on the article page, or perhaps at the associated WikiProject. The way I see it right now is that you're asking me to revert it for you, so that you aren't at 3RR and can claim not to be edit warring. Since I don't have expertise in this content area, I am declining to make a judgement call on the content. -- ferret (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the "How to define a music single" on the music-side of Wikipedia is basically the equivalent of the "How to define a video game generation" argument on the video game side of things. Lots of strong feelings and self-proclaimed experts on the matter, but a lot of disagreement on how exactly to label things. (They both share that same issue of "it was clear when the industry started, but technology and time has kind of distorted things" too.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, I didn't make three reverts in a 24-hour period (as I said, I reverted them once days ago, and then once yesterday), so I'm not at WP:3RR and that's not why I asked you to revert them. They did engage in the discussion, but in tandem then restored their edits to the article because "the discussion is ongoing", and my feeling was that yes, the discussion is ongoing—hence leave it, and they haven't. Ss112 21:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please note that there's a difference between edit warring and WP:3RR. You can never violate 3RR and still be edit warring. 3RR is merely the point on which you're pretty much blocked for sure. Sergecross73 msg me 23:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I get that, I just pointed out I didn't break 3RR nor was I near it. My point is still: they're allowed to indirectly revert my edit while the discussion is ongoing? Surely that shouldn't be done. In this case, this user appears to think, judging by their comment on Talk:Cardi B that because they wrote "90% of the article" their version should be retained. Sounds a little like WP:OWN. Of course I opposed to their version, but ordinarily I would think the version prior to the discussion beginning should be retained. Ss112 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret. You blocked Charlemanges revenge as a WP:VOA, but I also think there might be a connection to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime since it's the same type of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing on the same genre of articles. A number of new socks seem to have been created after the SPI was closed and these have all been indefinitely blocked as such. Is there any point in adding this account to the SPI now that it has also been indefinitely blocked for a different reason? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Although this one is already blocked, bringing it up at SPI might be useful for checkusers looking for other sleepers or possible range blocks. There has been at least one more sock since I blocked this one. Looks like @MarnetteD already opened an SPI for that purpose. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MarnetteD has just added the account as well as a few others to the SPI, so this will probably get sorted out one way or another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: And I just blocked another one. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping. I just finished filing the SPI. I probably should have done it earlier but after Cr was blocked I went back to regular editing. The two new socks sent me back to file the report. Thanks to you both for your vigilance. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added a couple more as well. They all have already been indefinitely blocked, but they do seem connected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi ferret. I'd like to request that an editnotice be added to my User Talk page in regards to recent IP messages which I've been annoyed at receiving lately. This is the notice I want posted:

{{editnotice
| id = jd22292-edit-request
| header = Edit requests
| headerstyle = font-size: 120%;
| text = If you are not registered and are here to ask me about looking at an edit request, please do not continue with your message. The point about an edit request is to make the request and leave it for an editor to review, not to make the request then go to someone's Talk page to inform them about it. Thank you for your understanding.
| image = Ambox_important.svg
| imagesize = 40px
| style = background: #f8eaba; border: 1px solid bb7070;
}}

I intend to add this editnotice to my Talk page to serve as a reminder to non-registered users about the edit request process and that they're not required to send me messages asking to look at a particular request. I will also allow you to improve on this editnotice before adding it to my Talk page if you spot anything wrong. Thanks in advance! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jd, this is just a natural consequence of involving yourself so heavily in that process. I am declining to set an edit notice, which shouldn't typically be used for this. Just add it as a banner at the top of your talk page. -- ferret (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret,

I am looking into different templates used to block/warn an editor. Seems you blocked this editor before. I wonder what template did you use? What I am trying to do is to see if an editor is blocked or warned by checking if there is any blocking/warning template on his/her page. The thing I am confused about is when a template is used, sometimes it shows the entire content (like this one), and sometimes it just shows a template abbreviation. Do you know why? Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret, I'm TDLWH and I had a reverting war with Pure conSouls in the article of Pro Evolution Soccer 2018 .

Our war is about the word "Officially" . When the user Sahilebrahim created the article, he wrote the word "Officially" before the releasing date, and it was like this : The game is the 17th installment in the Pro Evolution Soccer series and is scheduled to be "officially" released on 12 September 2017. The word had remainded in the article and no one deleted it, until the user Pure conSouls did that . When he/she deleted the word I revert the edit, he/she did it again and I revert the edit again . I think he/she deleted the word about 18 or 20 times , and in each once I revert the edit . It's true that I must not revert the edit more than 3 times or I'll be blocked, but the word "Officially" was written in the article when it was made for the first time and the word remained a long time before Pure conSouls delete it . I think there's no reason for deleting the word, and the deleting was unnecessary . To me, I think the word is necessary and important and must be in the article, because many people and companies can make a parodies, imitations, or copy some of the game characterstics or even copy the name itself . And this case happened when Apple Inc. announced the date of releasing their phone IPhone 7, but some Chines companies made a phones with the same name and even the same shape . So, if we don't write the word "Officially", the readers will be stuck between the original releasing date and the unoriginal one . And there's not any harm if we write the word, its size is just 1 byte (maybe less), and it won't make the article untidy . We need Your Opinion about that to end this War . Greetings TDLWH (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC) TDLWH (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferret, I don't know how you drew the short straw here, but this has gone on on Dinah Kirkland's talk page long enough; I have set themselves up a section for themselves on the article talk, where, of course, this 'discussion' should have been held already. At least less editors' time and energy will be drained there. — fortunavelut luna 14:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I provided some assistence to TDLWH around the time they registered, as well as Pure conSouls for that matter. I've been gone for two days for the US holiday weekend though. With this being back and forth across 4-5 different user talks (I've got like 7 ping notifications in different places on it), I really don't have the willpower to try to piece it together much just yet lol. Does it still require any attention or are the actors behaving for the moment? -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been resolved with my edit to the page so yes they are "behaving" kindly to each other. ♠Dinah♠ 🎤 17:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Moving on to my watchlist backlog then. :) -- ferret (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Do not delete Sanicball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagelFox (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 September 2017 UTC (UTC)

It doesn't pass our notability policies, but that is the purpose of the WP:AFD discussion. Other editors will chime in and help reach a conclusion. -- ferret (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It does it automatically now? Thats awesome! Thanks for the info! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Yep, it was implemented in July I believe. Here's the new way it works: "There are no required parameters; if none are supplied, a single-column list will be generated if there are fewer than 10 references in the list. If you have more than 10 references, it will use columns of 30em wide if your device allows this." -- ferret (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there a SPI report for INDIAN REVERTER2 (talk · contribs)? There has been some very interesting spamming going on related to INDIAN REVERTER2's edits, and I wanted to see if a CU had been done and with what scope. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: I came across it through a report to AIV. User is possibly related to CluebotGN as well, as an IP posted to both of them, and their unblock requests are all very similar. -- ferret (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! INDIAN REVERTER (talk · contribs) and Rug Connoisseur (talk · contribs) could be related. The first is blocked.

Probably just a coincidence, but there's open proxy block that included 172.111.222.8 (talk · contribs) that has some overlap with the editors above, and includes an ip that wasn't blocked, 172.94.109.20 (talk · contribs).

There's still some spam cleanup to be done, and I'll keep an eye open for more editors like this bunch. It feels like paid editing to support other conflict-of-interest editing. --Ronz (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fire.catcher - is a definite sock of Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lurulu. Same username M.O. and editing on Simple Minds. Hope you can block him and thanks very much. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry @ferret. I just saw the message at the top. Sergecross73, would it possible for you to handle this? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica:   Done. This one was around for quite a while. Please check edits and revert where necessary. @FlightTime: As info since you have set some warnings on this user, its a sock of Lurulu. -- ferret (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic   Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please explain to me why we are using UK English when FIFA 18 is an American made game? Most of the people looking at the page will be more comfortable using "installment instead of "instalment. ThanksMattmc 16 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mattmc 16: Please read MOS:RETAIN if you still haven't. The company that develops a game is not considered to establish a strong national tie (Plus, it was developed by EA Canada and EA Bucharest, not a US studio). The article was started in UK English, and focuses on FIFA, a global-but-European based association. All that aside though, MOS:RETAIN says don't change it without a consensus, which means opening a discussion on the article's talk page and having editors discuss it. English Wikipedia is a global site, not an American site, and there's far more international readers. (For clarification, I'm an American, so I don't have any sort of stake in pushing UK variants.) -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Ferret, if I understand correctly, there was also a consensus within WP:FOOTY that states to use British English across all FIFA related articles, which I would assume was based on the same MOS. Would this consensus make sense for the video games as well? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Not aware of WP:FOOTY in general, but I would assume a FIFA MOS consensus applies to FIFA games. -- ferret (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

First, of I been following the development of Paragon since day one I know the latest news about the development. Steve Superville no longer work for EPIC GAME INC he left last year. You can search on LinkedIn his name. Also his Twitter account no longer has the mentions of him working there. The other idea I think are great information about the milestone of the game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe16Create (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Philippe16Create: You keep undoing every edit other editors have made since July. This isn't acceptable, and you're acting as if you own the article, which is disruptive. It doesn't matter if Superville still works for EPIC, he is still credited as the director of the game. That fact doesn't change when he leaves. Please do not continue reverting to the old past version, as it introduces several grammar issues, removes more recent developments and sources, breaks template syntax that has changed since July, and adds back categories that were deleted since July. If you want to make changes, start with the current version, don't keep going back to July. @AdrianGamer: As info. -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'm out keep this article out-date waste of my time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe16Create (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a bother, I do have a reference site but I'm not skilled at all with the art of referencing and editing on Wikipedia. If I need to post it to prove it, here it is. http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/ Again, I am sorry for being a bother 2606:A000:7B91:D200:88D4:F9A4:57D6:8FF (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

VGChartz is not reliable for sales figures and is not accepted on Wikipedia. Additionally, you've been changing the figures differently in subsequent edits, which gives the appearance you're doing it disruptively. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay my apologies. It was not my intent to be disruptive. I won't do it again. 2606:A000:7B91:D200:88D4:F9A4:57D6:8FF (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

hi! you are mistake! 3 class have been added in world of warcraft:1-Death Knight 2-Monk 3-Demon hunter! i am a very old player in this game! please correct this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobayl73 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mobayl73: That is correct, however, Monk is not considered a hero class. Only two hero classes have been added, DK and DH. -- ferret (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Monk is not considered a hero class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!what's?!!!!!!!!!!Monk add in patch 5.4.8 and is a hero class with 3 roll:DPS and Healer and tank with 3 talent!! What's your meaning that Monk is not considered a hero class??? 04:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Mobayl73 you must read this page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft:_Mists_of_Pandaria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobayl73 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mobayl73: I'm also a long time player, with thousands of hours of play time and raid experience across nearly every tier. I know all about monks, I tanked as one for 2 tiers. They are not considered a hero class by Blizzard. See WoWWiki's article on hero classes. -- ferret (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

read this page:http://wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/Monk if monk is not hero class then what is monk???? Is this NPC? LOL!MONK have different level and talent same on the other hero! this is playable same other class! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobayl73 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mobayl73: It's a base class, just like warrior, mage, hunter, etc. It is not a hero class like DH and DK, which have unique starting areas and quests, and do not begin at level 1. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret asking for help to move User:Icem4k/Draft15 to 2018 FIFA World Cup Final i have sent a request on the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but someone keeps removing it without let me no the reason. The article is a start to the documentation of the final match that will be held in 2018 at the world cup in Russia. Please Help! Chabota Kanguya (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Icem4k, SkyWarrior, and Amakuru: Icem4k, both SkyWarrior and Amakuru rejected your request as being too soon. I am going to respect their judgement on that. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay thanks. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry mate.. I didn't know that you couldn't copy words from other pages— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thursby16 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the gameplay heading for Pumped BMX + but wrote it all myself with no copy and paste... could you check it for me incase that goes against any of these rules? Thursby16 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thursby16: Text looks good and original now. Sourcing is your big issue now. See WP:VG/RS for some information and a special Google search for reliable video game sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

How old exactly does a game need to be to have reviews from GameRanking be allowed into the reception? Thursby16 (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thursby16: Typically you would not need GR for games newer than 2006, 2007. Any time the score in Metacritic is roughly the same, skip GR. -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask about The Unfinished Swan then? Game was released in 2012 but has reviews from Metacritic and GameRanking but the score is almost the same.Thursby16 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thursby16: Basically, there's tens of thousands of video game articles, and guidelines change over time. Sometimes no one has had a chance to review an older article and make updates, so some of them don't 100% match the current guidelines. In this particular case, GR has been in the article for over 4 years. WP:VGAGG was decided sometime in the last 2 years if I remember right, and no one has gotten around to removing it (I believe there was a general feel that people shouldn't just go to every article and remove it carte blanche. But we discourage it in new articles.) -- ferret (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

How would I actually get a main image for the pages I created? (That's You!, 10 Second Ninja X, Hue, Pumped BMX +) Do I have to ask the developers/makers of the game if I am allowed to use them?Thursby16 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Thursby16: Please see WP:NFCC. Video game covers typically fall under this policy as well. It helps if you use the template {{Non-free use rationale 2}} when uploading the cover. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: So I can upload any video game cover, as long as I put the template {{Non-free use rationale 2}} when uploading? Where would I put the template? Thursby16 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thursby16: When uploading via WP:UPLOAD, there's a box that allows you to provide a description of the image. This is where you can fill out the info provided via the template. Just make sure you cover all the criteria covered by NFCC. If you need more help using the template, just refer to its documentation, where you can find the syntax under "Usage". A good example of what you would get once filled out completely can be found at File:Super Mario Odyssey, Seaside Kingdom.png. I advise against copying word for word and editing the text, but you can see what the uploader provided in terms of how the file is intended to be used. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)