NegativeMP1

You could be the first to win the Bilorv challenge "Showcase"

I was skimming through your dungeon (thanks again for letting me take the Rythm draft) and I saw that at one point you started making articles for the Halo TV series. Considering that you make the main article for the series, you could be the first to earn Showcase. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I made an article for the series premiere and very quickly after lost interest in wanting to edit about the Halo TV series. I also forgot most of the plot. I still could make the articles and just base the plot summaries after those posted elsewhere online, but the quality of the articles would not be up to my own personal standards. I like to prioritize quality over quantity. λ NegativeMP1 21:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

how to make the minecraft piracy section better

how to fix the trivial details and useless parts? Trollface 2006ALT (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I would classify all of it as trivial information that isn't relevant to the games history, or an encyclopedic overview of it. It seems like something that a YouTube video would talk about (because I know that exact YouTube video) rather than something actually relevant. At best, a sentence could be placed somewhere about how some people made pirated versions of the game that are playable in a web browser without naming any specific examples, but I don't even think that should be in the article and I don't think there is anywhere for it to go without seeming even more like trivia. It should not be in the article. λ NegativeMP1 01:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

ok, thanks for the response Trollface 2006ALT (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Vampire Money

Do you think "Vampire Money" will be a good article or not? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I will probably nominate it before too long. I'm just letting it sit to see if I can find anything else or if I catch things that need to be copyedited, rather than rushing through it. λ NegativeMP1 17:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Frontlines Gameplay (Roblox).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Frontlines Gameplay (Roblox).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 29 August. The penultimate round saw three contestants score more than 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,175 round points, mainly from sports-related articles, including 17 good articles, 27 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles
• Arconning (submissions) with 1,090 round points, mainly from articles about athletes and politicians, including a featured article on Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics, 9 good articles, 28 did you know articles, and a wide assortment of featured and good article reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 854 round points, mostly from a high-scoring featured article on the Indian leader Rani of Jhansi and two good articles, in addition to 13 featured and good article reviews

Everyone who competed in Round 4 will advance to Round 5 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for Round 4 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 9 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 98 good articles, 9 good topic articles, more than 150 reviews, nearly 100 did you know articles, and 18 in the news articles.

In advance of the fifth and final round, the judges would like to thank every contestant for their hard work. As a reminder, any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed in Round 5. In addition, note that Round 5 will end on 31 October at 23:59 UTC. Awards at the end of Round 5 will be distributed based on who has the most tournament points over all five rounds, and special awards will be distributed based on high performance in particular areas of content creation (e.g., most featured articles in a single round).

Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges – Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), Frostly (talk · contribs), Guerillero (talk · contribs) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) – are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Genshin Impact GA nominations

Hey there, I see you wrote the articles on Paimon and Furina and was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing one of my Genshin Impact GA nominations? I have Mondstadt, Liyue, Inazuma, Sumeru, Fontaine and Natlan all nominated. Let me know if you're interested! Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll consider it, though I'm concerned that I won't be able to properly assess source-text integrity with how many Chinese sources the pages use in comparison to the Genshin articles I worked on in the past. Not that using Chinese sourcing is a bad thing, because it isn't, I'm just not sure if I can properly assess so many sources. λ NegativeMP1 20:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I find that using this link on Chinese Wikipedia is a decent starting point for checking a Chinese-language source's integrity, as it corresponds to our WP:VG/S. Gommeh 📖/🎮 21:33, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean from a translation standpoint. I don't speak Chinese, so I'd be relying on translation software. For a couple of sources I think it's fine as long as no quotations or opinions are being drawn, but the more Chinese sources there are, the more concerned I'd become.

Also as an FYI, in-case you're still looking to make more Genshin articles, I put together sources for Xiao and Arlecchino a while back here to establish notability but never got around to researching more of before I lost interest in Genshin. I still think they both have shots, but only if there's more out there than the sources I already provided, considering I thought Venti was already notable yet got AfD'd. The sources there are only to do the bare minimum at establishing notability. Just passing on what I managed to put together at the time. I wish you luck with your Genshin-related article creations. λ NegativeMP1 18:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

Looks like I'm having trouble determining whether a video game source demonstrates notability or SIGCOV despite reading WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. I'm concerned my AfD record may take a hit because of this - any help? Gommeh 📖/🎮 21:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

What I would personally regard as contributing towards notability or SIGCOV is definitely on a case by case basis. I actually am very lenient to what constitutes as SIGCOV. But what I don't think constitutes as SIGCOV is things like basic announcements, or coverage that doesn't really offer things to say about the subject. If a source is routine coverage or an announcement, then it's hardly secondary coverage at all unless it offers an interpretation or more details beyond the absolute basics. Plot summary sources also fall under this. This is why I think enough critical reception or analysis is the ultimate deciding factor for video game region/character notability (and also whether or not a detailed article can be made). Also, as an FYI, I am actually very lenient on what can be considered SIGCOV. As long as it offers decent commentary about the subject, I'm willing to consider one or two paragraphs as SIGCOV. λ NegativeMP1 02:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

List of Roblox games: Tower Defense Simulator

Hello Negavie! Could I ask: What Makes Tower Defense Simulator not noteworthy but makes, for example, Flee The Facility noteworthy? Tower Defense Simulator has had a player count peak of 11.000 in the last 24h (Flee the Facility had 16.000) while winning a Roblox award and being nomiated for two more and having a much more active online presence, also sharing a pretty stable playerbase historically of 10.000 YZiv (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if Tower Defense Simulator should be brought back or if I am just comparing with a bad example and Flee the Facility should also be taken down

If the issue was a lack of sources then there are plenty of sources avalable online, I will redo the edit with more.

@YZiv: What determines a game's eligibility for the list is whether or not multiple reliable, secondary sources have discussed the game in detail. Or, more formally, significant coverage. Roblox player counts do not mean anything regarding notability on the list. The page criteria is included on the talk page, as well as an alert when editing the page. λ NegativeMP1 19:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Kaiserrech

Just wanted to ask, why can i not cite the official kaiserreich wiki kept up by the mod devs? If i cant use the official wiki for the lore where else would i site the lore? especially the updated thing since the articles used in the original edition are from 2019, either way they had to be updated

Also i personally do believe that my edits weren't "non constructive" especially with the austrai-hungary section, the article literally says they consolidate into one government when in reality they federalized under the rule of otto (as stated by the wiki)

"After the renegotiations of the Ausgleich in 1927, the empire was reorganized into five constituent members (two primary and three secondary):

Primary Constituents

• Austrian Empire
• Kingdom of Hungary

Secondary Constituents

• Kingdom of Illyria
• Kingdom of Bohemia (under the control of the Austrian Crown)
• Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (under the control of the Austrian Crown)" And I think that kaisercat cinema deserve their own section on the article seen as how they're a seperate entity from the mod devs and creators Plus theres nothing "non constructive" about just cleaning up phrasing and making the writing alot smoother and seem less clunky Im sorry if i seem upset, while i am slightly, im not to a crazy amount. Mainly that you completely reverted all of the changes and didn't even keep any of the updates i made, plus i was kinda caught off guard lol

Inkchan (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not being able to cite things like the Kaiserreich Wiki is Wikipedia policy. We have multiple sourcing guidelines, although the main ones relevant here are WP:RS and WP:UGC. The Kaiserreich Wiki falls under UGC, meaning it cannot be cited. We don't allow the citing of any wiki, actually. Not even other Wikipedia articles. And if the devs run the Wiki, then the concern of too much WP:PRIMARY sourcing comes into play. Generally, if something is not reported by reliable, secondary sources, and is not essential to filling in jarring coverage gaps or providing basic background information, then its inclusion on Wikipedia is questionable. For the case of the Kaisercat Cinema, that's barely mentioned in sources to begin with, so the weight given to it right now is all that is due.

As for the accuracy of the lore, originally it came down to how it was in the sources. But since then, I believe a number of editors have edited it and I also recall a talk page complaint about a maps accuracy. So I'm not sure what is or is not accurate, or if it even follows the sources at this point. From my own knowledge of things, the Kaiserreich lore is not fully established and concrete on its own and a lot of it is speculated from clues or external media or updates. I also think that for something like this which is so reliant on external media it falls under plot sourcing guidelines. Hence why the sources are used in the first place and required. If the lore is outdated, then so be it. Policy is policy, and no justification can overrule it here. λ NegativeMP1 03:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhh that makes complete sense, sorry if i came off as accusitory or rude! I was trying my best to like defend my edits but still sound genuine. Thank you for clearing it up for me tho! Inkchan (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hey, I made an article about Spawnism with plenty of coverage and within 5 minutes was deleted. Its Lido (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Save Yourself, I'll Hold Them Back" notability

Is "Save Yourself, I'll Hold Them Back" notable? It was released as a promotional single according to My Chemical Romance discography#Promotional singles, and is included in this ranking: https://exclaim.ca/music/article/my-chemical-romance-s-15-best-songs-ranked, so i'm not sure if it's notable. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. The songs independent release was through being released as a separate MP3 on the bands website before the album itself released and it went without any sort of fanfare. Sourcing regarding the song is very scarce; I've already searched for its notability myself. Technically no sources even discussed the songs separate release (or well apparently NME did but I couldn't ever find the issue or article discussing it) but I put it there because it arguably meets what WP:SINGLE? classifies as a promotional single and I want the discography to be as comprehensive as possible on my journey to get it to FL. λ NegativeMP1 19:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

What MCR songs do you think are notable that don't have articles? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

At this point, I think it's stale. Every song that I felt had a shot I've done more searching on lately and I just don't think any of them get there. I'm sure "Bulletproof Heart" still has some potential given you could write a lot about how it was scrapped as a lead single, got screwed out of a music video, and a few other things, but composition information just isn't that plentiful and I feel it'd be pulling teeth to try and get an article on it, or any other MCR song that doesn't have one right now, to work. "Cemetery Drive" and "House of Wolves" kinda fall into similar territory. It may be at a point where any MCR song that could get an article based on present already has one. In other words, it may be complete, and now it would have to go towards making sure the articles are all of a decent quality. λ NegativeMP1 19:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Question

Do you think I'm being unnecessarily hostile to GeogSage? I really do not mean to be mean, but dear God I cannot take another case of them shitting on sports. They can't just simply cast a vote for a sportsperson's removal, they have to loudly declare "I more-or-less think that sportspeople are a parasite to society" and then they act all shocked when people go "wait, what?" I just don't get where hostility is coming from. And more importantly, I don't get why they can't understand that most people would have some sportspeople on their "Top 2000 most important people" list. Apparently we all just want to maintain the status of the VA project, we can't just disagree with their opinions. This user literally told me point blank that they do not think that we should have Pelé at Level 4. Pelé.

I don't mean to dump this on you, and I'm sorry for derailing your thread. Bluevestman (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want my true and honest opinion, yes, you probably are too hostile. There are many things regarding the vital articles process that personally bother me, or I at least find questionable. This applies to just about everyone. However it's not in a way where I view it as compromising of the vital projects goals, but rather mere differences in our opinions that can lead towards compromise. I do not hold anything against any specific editor there personally. Yes, he is very outspoken about his disdain for sports figures. I'm very outspoken about some of my own views regarding what vital articles could be in the areas I personally focus on. I'm sure some find even my own views a bit questionable. And that's fine. I, personally, would not hold anything against any editor even if you get annoyed with that editors perspective at times. λ NegativeMP1 03:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding my edits that were undid

I saw your reversion of my edit on the page Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?, and you said "Worth noting why?" It was a bit confusing on what you said, can you please clarify it to me? DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, my wording as probably too brief. My reversion was because I questioned why noting that a Henry Stickman Wikipedia article exists on multiple other Wikipedias, but not the English one, was worth noting on an explanatory essay about notability regarding BFDI. I apologize for the confusion. λ NegativeMP1 03:20, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

As you said in "Sorry, my wording as probably too brief.", you used the word as as is. Is this a typo, or was it on purpose? DiscoveringMysteries03 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant "was". I missed the W. Sorry. λ NegativeMP1 16:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I have a somewhat (okay, not really) related question, @NegativeMP1. May I please have an explanation as to why the content you removed here is superfluous? (Before anyone tells me, I already know what that word means.) That word alone in the edit summary you provided doesn't adequately explain why. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Because I interpret that text as trying to overblow the importance of BFDI or go into trivial detail about a subject for a page that merely discusses why that thing does not have an article. I find it to be an outstanding claim that, even outside of article space, editors alone should not be making about a subject without anything to back it up or include it as if its a key detail to explaining the series itself. λ NegativeMP1 16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I appreciate the explanation. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 16:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive

October 2025 GAN Backlog Drive
On 1 October 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog and to reduce old nominations. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed. Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vampire Money is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Vampire Money is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fwedthebwead -- Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		Vital Barnstar
		Just thought I'd drop by and give a barnstar to recognize the work you do for the project. You're one of the names I see consistently making the project better. Keep up the good work! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! λ NegativeMP1 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vampire Money is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Vampire Money has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Vampire Money has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Vampire Money has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pi.1415926535 -- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fwedthebwead -- Fwedthebwead (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Disenchanted (My Chemical Romance song) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Fwedthebwead -- Fwedthebwead (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Some help.

I was wondering if I could get some help from you. I saw you did the forking for Metallica's The Unforgiven 1/2/3, so I was wondering if you could tell me if an edit I intend to do would be wise. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, what's up? λ NegativeMP1 16:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Is Måneskin's cover of Beggin' deserving of being split into its own page? It is a supple section just for a cover, and charted highly. I ask because I can't think of any other cover that got forked into its own page due to becoming that much more successful than the original. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 17:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

If you believe enough coverage of the cover version exists to make a page out of, go for it. It is entirely possible for a cover of a song to be more successful than the original. λ NegativeMP1 23:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It is done if you would care to review it: Beggin' (Måneskin cover). Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 13:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Battle for Dream Island

Hello! Did you hear that this draft has been recreated due to a discussion over at the Administrators' noticeboard? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I did. λ NegativeMP1 06:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on whether the draft will get into mainspace or not? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 10:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

When BFDI is notable, sure. Although I don't expect that process to be exactly very smooth. With how infamous the case is (which is why I monitor the essay in the first place, BTW) it would very likely attract people with all kinds of opinions regarding notability. There's no chance that a legitimate article made on BFDI with proper secondary sourcing would go without some kind of AFD citing that essay... λ NegativeMP1 17:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I also started monitoring the essay for the same reasons as yours. The draft definitely wouldn't survive an AfD if it were published to mainspace in its current state. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 22:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Source

Can I share the source for Megalovania’s origin? It’s already known that 2 songs are involved but if you’re skeptical I can share them. Firekong1 (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't doubt anything about Megalovania's origin. I've heard what specific song it was based on in the past—I used to be a major Undertale fan. My issue with it being in the article, however, is that that claim isn't backed up by a reliable source, nor is it in the article at present. Therefore resulting in a disparity between the lead and the article body. You'd probably need either a reliable source from WP:VG/S or WP:RSP, or a primary source, that confirms the specific song Megalovania was based on and then add that to the article. λ NegativeMP1 17:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll add a source, don’t worry about it. I also noticed a lambda on your signature, are you a Half-Life fan by any chance? Firekong1 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, presuming the source is reliable as I mentioned, then there should be no issue.

Regarding my signature—kinda. It was more or less based on the Valve logo itself but I threw in the lambda symbol because, even if not directly part of the Valve logo, it'd make it more obvious what it was referencing. I do enjoy the games though. λ NegativeMP1 16:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, and interesting. I’m a Half-Life fan, and noticing your lambda got me curious. Firekong1 (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

RSN Discussion

I have posted regarding our source quality dispute at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Push_Square,_Game_Rant,_and_Engadget_for_Call_of_Duty:_Black_Ops_7_pre-release_metrics. Your input would be appreciated. ~~~~ Megamoddingman (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Book question

Do you have this book? https://www.google.com/books/edition/Queen_All_the_Songs/0_XNDwAAQBAJ?hl=en Cause I need a certain page number of the book for an article I'm creating. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not, unfortunately. λ NegativeMP1 17:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Starfield gameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Starfield gameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Seek and Destroy

hey Metallica is a thrash band, and all of the other songs say "by thrash metal band Metallica" so please do not revert that edit, I am going to change it back, please do not edit war. JamesMcCloy11 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

They are not exclusively a thrash metal band and lead genres for describing bands are meant to be broad. By Wikipedia standards, we should call Metallica simply "heavy metal", and that's how the band album describes it. Also, not every song article for them and "by thrash metal band Metallica". I can list multiple that do not. And they should not. I'm actually having trouble trying to find one that says thrash over heavy. I'm also going to take it that if they say thrash and not heavy it was likely changed by someone randomly down the line without understanding of consensus. Also, the way you just made this edit results in a misleading easter egg link. I am undoing the edit again. λ NegativeMP1 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

ok, I trust your judgement. that's my bad. have a good day :) JamesMcCloy11 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

actually how about we meet in the middle and do thrash/heavy metal, I trust your judgement and just read your feedback, but it's up to you for what it says, I trust you. JamesMcCloy11 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Putting a slash in between two different things is discouraged (MOS:SLASH), so that's not really a good idea. Especially when thrash is really just a subset of heavy so saying "heavy metal" can still by extent imply thrash. λ NegativeMP1 15:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

ok, sorry I'm still learning :-) JamesMcCloy11 (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Clearing doubts

Hello, I wonder if you still portray me as arrogant. If you have felt bad about my tone in the past, I apologize. My intention was not to intimidate anyone, although I accept I was being dramatic. I felt the need to consult because you left the list of best-selling video games article for months and were not even in touch with its talk page. So I want to ask if the reason was me being rude, or if you simply lost interest, or both. Kazama16 (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Truthfully I just haven't gotten the time lately to be too involved in Wikipedia debates or direct page improvements. I haven't wrote anything in a while. I still have the best selling games page on my watchlist and monitor it though. Also, I never portrayed you as outright arrogant as much as I may have questioned how the page was organized. I was probably being harsh with some of my responses then too, as I was just trying to prove a point and likely came off as overwhelming (my Pokemon sales analysis was probably a bit overboard in how I delivered it and I'll fully come clean on that). λ NegativeMP1 16:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

About my edit you reverted

Hello! In the page Glossary of 2020s slang you reverted my addition of "Chicken Stars" due to it being improperly sourced and I was just wondering how my sources were invalid. Wikitimelee (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

By improperly sourced, I meant that the sources used to back up the entry were not of acceptable quality. Typically, Wikipedia requires citations to reliable sources to verify information as well as certify how relevant the information may be. Of the two sources you used, KnowYourMeme is not reliable per WP:KNOWYOURMEME (basically, any site - such as Know Your Meme - is built off of user-generated content without much oversight and is not reliable by default), and the other source Sheknows seems like a strange parenting blog that I can't seem to tell how "reliable" it may be. I'm sorry if my reasoning for reverting initially was too vague. λ NegativeMP1 01:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I was a little iffy on if I should count know your meme but I saw another term (cracked) with SheKnows as the only source it. I'm pretty sure the SheKnows article I sourced got its information from know your meme for the most part so it could just be no good. Wikitimelee (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC) Wikitimelee (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

BFDI

Hello again. Did you hear that Battle for Dream Island now has an article? Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Was honestly surprised the article got made that fast. λ NegativeMP1 19:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Same here. And a lot of things followed: WP:BFDI is now historical, BFDI-related entries have been removed from the title blacklist, and {{OSC notice}} is being nominated for deletion. I wonder what could happen from here on out. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 20:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 November newsletter

The 2025 WikiCup has come to an end. Our top scorers, based on the tournament point rankings (which can be seen here), are:

1. BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,604 tournament points, will receive the 1st place award.
2. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,075 tournament points, will receive the 2nd place award.
3. Arconning (submissions) with 860 tournament points, will receive the 3rd place award.
4. History6042 (submissions) with 804 tournament points
5. Sammi Brie (submissions) with 635 tournament points
6. TheDoctorWho (submissions) with 386 tournament points
7. AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 373 tournament points
8. Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 362 tournament points

Our high scorers in the final round were:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,035 round points, mostly from 19 good articles and 21 did you know articles about athletes
• vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) with 819 round points, mostly from 13 good articles and 11 did you know articles about a wide range of topics from abortion topics to African cities
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) with 508 round points from 9 good articles, 4 good topic articles and 6 did you know articles mainly about Philippines topics, along with 19 good article reviews

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 2 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 106 good articles, 5 good topic articles, 178 article reviews, 76 did you know articles, and 9 in the news articles. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

The top eight scorers will receive awards shortly. The following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. These prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field during the competition.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, with 12 featured articles total, and the featured topic prize, with 9 featured topic articles in total
• Hey man im josh (submissions) wins the featured list prize, with 10 featured lists total
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, submitting the only featured picture in the entire contest during round 3
• History6042 (submissions) wins the featured content reviewer prize, with 127 featured content reviews. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• BeanieFan11 (submissions) wins the good article prize, with 100 good articles total, and the DYK prize, with 147 did you know articles in total. He will also share the ITN prize, with 20 in the news articles in total.
• TheDoctorWho (submissions) wins the good topic prize, with 16 good topic entries in total
• Arconning (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, with 68 good article reviews in total

A special mention also goes to these users who scored the highest in a particular category in a single round:

• Sammi Brie (submissions), with 27 good articles in round 3, and 45 good article reviews in round 1
• Tails Wx (submissions), with 10 in the news articles in round 3

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate. The WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2026 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

On behalf of the judges, Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email):

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor Swift – The Life of a Showgirl (album cover).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Taylor Swift – The Life of a Showgirl (album cover).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The Five of Us Are Dying and Knives / Sorrow by MCR

I need some clarification. I don't quite understand your reasoning why The Five of Us Are Dying and Knives / Sorrow cannot be included n the List of songs recorded by MCR

The Five of Us Are Dying is considered a rough mix, just like their song "Emily (Rough Mix)" – a song surprisingly present n the list. And regarding, Knives / Sorrow as a demo, All the Angels and Party at the End of the World are considered demos too. If rough mixes and demos cannot be included there, then we must remove Emily, All the Angels, and Party at the End of the World as well. Looking forward to your response. EvanJeffCordova (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the confusion. My reasoning is that I view The Five of Us Are Dying and Knives/Sorrows are more or less just early versions of WTTBP and Our Lady of Sorrows, respectively. They were even advertised as such. I don't think they warrant being considered separate songs—which giving it a separate entry would imply—for that reason. It's not like All The Angels or Emily which are distinct songs in their own right, even if left unfinished and sporting very major differences. It's the same reason why the two demo versions of House of Wolves and the demo of Disenchanted aren't listed, and probably shouldn't be, even if fundamentally different songs. Although maybe leeway could be given to The Five of Us Are Dying due to how different it is and it was technically released as a promotional single on streaming services. λ NegativeMP1 06:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello NegativeMP1:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Nomination for deletion of "Jailbreak (Roblox)"

Hello NegativeMP1: I, the creator of the "Jailbreak (Roblox)" article noticed that you have nominated the article for deletion because it does not align with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically for Notability and Unreliable sources. I want to know what could happen to the article and what could be done for it to be more "efficient" and follow the policies of the English Wikipedia. If it is deleted, merged or redirected as the majority then ignore this. rave (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've had a hectic week so I might give better feedback later but right now the bottom line is just notability. Notability isn't the only factor behind what can or can't get an article, but it's generally the main one. Jailbreak simply just isn't notable. You need multiple reliable sources that are dedicated to Jailbreak specifically (not the creator, but the game). For video games this is typically reviews or coverage that covers multiple aspects of a game (gameplay, reception, etc). Strong emphasis on the Reception part, which is generally how people determine the notability of a video game. A well sourced and structured reception section is almost always needed. λ NegativeMP1 17:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

alr thanks! :) have a good day rave (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Black Parade Is Dead! is under review

Your good article nomination of the article The Black Parade Is Dead! is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

A quick question about the reliablity of sources in a 2006 Video game Mad Tracks

Hi, NegativeMP1! Sorry for disturbing you since you're busy. I want to have a question about the reliability of the 4 sources for Mad Tracks. Specifically, SpeedManiacs, GameSwelt, DemoNews and ZockOn. They do cover some of the news and preview reviews about the game. I don't know which one might be an unreliable source for the Mad Tracks article; can you help?

I have some concerns with the reliability of the ZockOn; they covered a preview of Mad Tracks in 2005, though AI Overview claims that it's unreliable, judging by the Contact Hosting page of the website and the latter's quote: Do you have a fan page for a current or upcoming title?' Looking for a strong partner who will provide you with the technology you need? You've come to the right place! (Translated from German: Ihr habt eine Fanseite zu einem aktuellen oder noch erscheinenden Titel? Ihr sucht einen starken Partner, der euch die nötige Technik zur Verfügung stellt? Dann seid ihr bei uns genau richtig!)

So, which ones are reliable and which aren't?

Thanks! SI Moon. SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 18:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The best way to determine the reliability of these sources is to see if they have any reliable qualities. For video games this generally goes to the follow questions: does the source have an editorial policy? Are the writers experienced in the field of writing or video game industry as a whole, and also credited accordingly? Is the content high quality and doesn't frequently publish low quality content aka churnalism?

For me it seems like the following: SpeedManiacs seems like a fan site that couldn't be considered high quality. GamesWelt is listed as reliable at WP:VG/S, so that ones fine. I don't see any reliable qualities in DemoNews, so I'm not sure. And ZockOn seems like a user-generated forum, which are inherently unreliable. λ NegativeMP1 04:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So, in conclusion for all of these sources and their status of their reliability, some of them can be included in WP:VG/S.

• GameSwelt, (Completely Reliable.)
• DemoNews (? (reliability of it), this may change in future.)
• SpeedManiacs (fan site, Completely unreliable, obviously and with no question.)
• ZockOn. (user-generated forum, Completely unreliable.)

The additional sources may come soon! And also, thank you!! SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Black Parade Is Dead! has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The Black Parade Is Dead! has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LEvalyn -- LEvalyn (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: Black Ops 7

The category description says "Works that were created in whole or part using artificial intelligence tools." so I guess the game counts for something. I honestly don't mind if my edit got reverted though. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, yeah. It's just a category so it really doesn't matter. Editorial discretion just kinda kicked in for me on that part because the game only has AI-generated cosmetics as far as I'm aware (and those are fully optional). I can see how the category fits or an argument for it not fitting. It honestly doesn't matter. Thanks for showing me what the category description is though, I didn't bother to check that initially (I originally thought that it meant stuff entirely generated by AI). λ NegativeMP1 08:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)