User talk:ferret

Ermac

Hey again, Ferret. Well, apparently the article now has an edit war problem. But these 2 edits seem a bit suspicious [1] [2], 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 [3] [4] [5]. (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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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 ([6], [7]) 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Okay, got it. thank you for your help. HimuTheEditor (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferret&oldid=1221513300"