Insight regarding WP:VG sectionEdit

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

@Seadoubleyoujay: I wouldn't worry too much. WT:VG and ANI both show that other editors disagree that this was canvassing (Or seen a different way, "disallowed" canvassing). The important thing to remember when approaching projects or noticeboards about an existing discussion is to try not to write it in a way that suggests how participants should "vote". Just tell them where the discussion is and the basics of what it's about. Of course, be mindful that the project or noticeboard you approach has some reason to be interested as well. -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it! — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 19:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

List of video games considered the worstEdit

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

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

Regional At Best and Draft:Regional At BestEdit

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

Got it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best. I think that I have this, although any additional information will be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't be surprised if you or User:Sandstein or User:Winged Blades of Godric get asked about it in the next few days. These band-album-track debates can be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I remember the case. There were several salts as fans kept trying to make the article at different titles. See also Regional at Best (lowercase at), which is likely the proper title and has a much more extensive history. As well as Regional at Best (album) -- ferret (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, they can ask you or Sandstein or Godric to unsalt it, and you will probably say no. They can take it to Deletion Review, but I won't advise that. (I have been rebuked for advising that stuff be taken to DRV.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Here is a throw-away comment about a throw-away account. The editor who submitted the draft that I declined has made exactly three edits, which were to submit that draft. I am inclined to suspect suckpoppetry, but I don't have enough evidence to file a report or to request CheckUser. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: There is a sockpuppet who operated in this area, but I haven't spotted them in quite a long time. There were many low-activity accounts involved in the past articles that remain unblocked, so I'd cautiously lean towards a more meat-puppetry angle. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

NacionalityEdit

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

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

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

Doom 2016 additionEdit

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

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

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

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