This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This is NegativeMP1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You 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 RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Based5290 :3 (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The second round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 April. As a reminder for contestants who just joined or are unaware of recent changes to our round-points system, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 2 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; nine scored over 500; and fourteen scored over 300. The top seven contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1,333 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,169 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to shipping ethics controversy in fanfiction, waterways, and Gu Yanwu
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,149 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, and featured lists about figure skating, along with many article reviews and two good topics
• Olliefant (submissions) with 830 points, mainly from good and featured articles about television shows, episodes and media, along with nearly four dozen good and featured article reviews
• Gommeh (submissions) with 827 points, mainly from good and featured articles related to Genshin Impact and Honkai: Star Rail

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 13 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 106 good articles, 22 good-topic articles and more than 40 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 3 In the News articles, and they have conducted over 200 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. 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 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) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, 10 citations are enough. I think it passed GNG. Considered it was my first edit here and I joined wikipedia much earlier to than you, I might be right, and I would like to revert back my article. AIeydwerai (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article did not demonstrate significant coverage or critical commentary dedicated to the map itself to establish notability. And, when the Counter-Strike map list exists, you'd also have to establish why the article warrants a split-out from there. The number of citations isn't relevant, but rather what those citations have. When you joined the site is even less relevant. If you would like, I can take the article to AfD instead. λ NegativeMP1 19:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what "poorly sourced" means if these are literally primary sources. Do you need more sources or what?

And why is this information "irrelevant to the current Counter-Strike 2"? How the hell do you decide what's relevant and what's irrelevant for CS2 page? Team Fortress 2 page describes its early version called Brotherhood of Arms, even though it looks nowhere near the final version. This is the development history of Counter-Strike 2, you can't just call it irrelevant.

I want detailed explanations, not two sentences scribbled on a phone.

D1W3N510N (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point blank, the CS2 from then is not related to the current CS2 at all. At least, that's not what the "sources" provided establish. They establish a scrapped project that had the same name. But beyond that, they are completely unrelated. What makes it irrelevant isn't the fact they look different, it's the fact they are completely separate things, unless you have reliable sources that directly connect these two. And to that, you're gonna have to have some strong sourcing to argue that something developed 20~ years apart is somehow the same project, when there is no connection beyond the name.

Sourcing wise, well, working off of the previous paragraph, your sources aren't reliable. Primary sources, yes. But there are limits to using primary sources. Every addition you made was based on primary sourcing, which WP:PRIMARY prohibits. It's not even interviews from reliable sources, just blogs and forums. Do you have reliable sources that discuss the "original version" of CS2? No? Then it isn't relevant for inclusion in the first place, let alone qualifying for what I said earlier of the idea they're the same project.

Also going to courtesy ping @IDKFA-93:, the page's primary maintainer and author at this point, for his opinion. λ NegativeMP1 22:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene 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 Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene 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. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on David Bowie's 1977 song "'Heroes'" that his and Brian Eno's names were added to Alessio's and Tove Lo's 2014 song "Heroes (We Could Be)"'s writing credits in July 2015, because I think that's useful information. PK2 (talk; contributions) 05:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's useful. The section is for information about the composition of the song, not a place for trivia about how Bowie is credited as a songwriter on an, as far as we should be considered, completely unrelated song. λ NegativeMP1 07:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it absolutely does not belong in the composition section. You could possibly make an argument for the "cover versions and tributes" section, but even then the credit was added as a gesture and not through any musical connection, so it doesn't strike me as particularly useful to that specific article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Big Boss MGS4 Screenshot.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) 17:12, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! (again), sorry for disturbing you. I need to discuss the permission of using a semi-protection lock for the Baldi's Basics article so it will not be vandalised by the subsequent unregistered users when preparing it for GA nomination. If you want to talk about it, I have no problems with it.

Thanks! SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, I'm a bit confused here. I can't protect pages; that's the job of an administrator. λ NegativeMP1 00:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ok. SI Moon Grubisz440 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was thinking of making another MCR article, so I wanna ask you what you this is most notable MCR song that doesn't already have one if there is one? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like 99% sure at this point that there are no notable songs left that don't already have articles. I've gone through practically everything. If I think something has potential I'll let you know but I think right now the coverage of the band's music in terms of what can or cannot sustain an article is, for lack of a better word, "complete". λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to let you know that I've gone about nominating Alone (The Cure song) for FA status, now that I have a bit more free time on my hands (nomination page). This is my first nomination at FA, and I would really appreciate your input and/or your possible support :) So far, I've received a media and source review, as well as one prose review. Of course, don't feel obligated if you're too busy or just not in the mood; I just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Leafy46 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: It's been on my list to review since it came up, but I've had a bit of a stacked schedule lately and haven't started a review until I know I can commit to it. λ NegativeMP1 00:10, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're all good. Thank you for keeping it on your mind :) Leafy46 (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]