User talk:Rhain/2021 July–December

talk

2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014
2015 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2016 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2017 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2018 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2019 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2020 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2021 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2022 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2023 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)

newsletters

image: Oren Rozen

Games is not begin developed it is simply a money grab side project.

This is 100% true as this game has not had any massive progress made in 7 years of being in alpha, at most it belongs in an in development section as its not even close to done and never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdynReedy (talk • contribs) 03:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@AdynReedy: Please provide a reliable source to support that statement. – Rhain ☔ 03:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ghost of Tsushima

I apparently got a bit carried away. I can never tell how much detail is enough. Sorry. --Sodari (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sodari: No need to apologise; it was well written, it just exceeded the word limit. The existing plot section is already pushing the word limit a little, so unfortunately there's not much more that can be added without some adjustments. – Rhain ☔ 00:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Clickers

Thoughts on Clickers from The Last of Us being notable? like Flood (Halo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.149.101.212 (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about it before, but I really don't think they're notable enough for their own article. The Flood are especially notable for their development and involvement in the plot, and they're sometimes recognised as one of the greatest game villains; I'm not sure the same could be said about Clickers (or the Infected in general) for now. Perhaps once the TV show comes out, they'll become more notable, but for now I don't think so. – Rhain ☔ 13:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Home Free

If you are interested in expanding Home Free then this link here [1] will have some info about the personnel which might be useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Thanks, but I'm not looking to expand the article. I'm also not sure that source is considered reliable, though it may be a good place to start when looking for search terms. – Rhain ☔ 00:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Revert: Naughty Dog

Hello Rhain,

I understand why you revert my edit to the Naughty Dog page, you're right to be careful. The source is a French book about the story of Naughty Dog that I wrote. It's based on exclusive interviews with 35 former members of Naughty Dog, including Andy Gavin and Jason Rubin (who told me the anecdote). Andy Gavin also wrote the preface of the book. I'd like to know how I could help make the source valid by wikipedia standard. I would understand if you didn't want to just rely on my good faith - but on the other hand I don't know if scanning a page written in French would really help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GagReathle (talk • contribs) 08:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@GagReathle: Thanks for reaching out, and congratulations on the book. A scan of the relevant page (with highlighted section) would be great, as it would help to support the claims. (Of course, it's not that I don't believe you, but seeing the information in context would be useful.) Thanks! – Rhain ☔ 01:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

File:JAM1.jpg

File:JAM2.jpg

@Rhain: Thanks for your quick answer (and also for the book!). I totally understand your point of view. Unfortunately, wikipedia only allows me to upload pictures of the book content, and not a proper pdf extract. But I don't think that I can't add it to the source on the main Naugthy Dog page. Do you know a way to do this?

@GagReathle: It should actually be possible to upload PDF files on Wikimedia (example), but these images are good. We won't add them to the article itself, but they're useful for any editors who may be questioning the claims; it's definitely odd that this information doesn't appear to have made public in all that time. I've restored the information to the article. Thanks for your help! If you book is ever translated to English, I'll be getting a copy on day one. – Rhain ☔ 23:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the film article

Have you actually seen that movie? Please stop, or take up your grievances on the talk page. 2601:280:9:C123:E99C:73BB:E82:BAC9 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. You are now in violation of the 3rr rule (no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Will thank you in advance to abide by this rule.2601:280:9:C123:E99C:73BB:E82:BAC9 (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a 3RR violation when it's reverting vandalism, as it was here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Marston

You say the genre category is not meant to have articles in it but it has always been populated. Marston and the other Read Dead character are not cowboys and so they belong in the Western characters category like all other characters from Old West fiction who are not cowboys. The cowboys/cowgirls has little practical use and might as well be removed. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I'm not the one who's saying that, I'm just referring to the {{Category diffuse}} template atop Category:Western (genre) characters. Arthur Morgan may not fit perfectly inside the category, but it could be argued that John Marston does—and so do a bunch of the other characters who you removed from the category. I'd like to assume good faith but the fact that you requested speedy deletion after you culled the category feels like an attempt to circumvent CfD. – Rhain ☔ 10:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

All I can say is that there is clearly a competence issue here because you are totally ignoring WP:CATDEF. Very, very few of the entries in that category, including the two in your over-rated game, have been defined as cowboys, cattle ranchers, traildrivers, etc. Having been revived a couple of months ago, the Westerns project is trying very hard to correct misuse of categories, including inappropriate creation of them, and I've lost count of the number that have been taken to CfD. Others have been run down and then CSD which was where this one was heading. If you seriously think that characters like Chris Adams or the Man with No Name belong in a cowboys category, there isn't much else I can say to you. Okay, I will take this category to CfD too. What a waste of time and effort because of someone who clearly has no understanding of what a category is for and does not recognise definition of categories. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I applaud the editors who have revived the Westerns project, but this isn't the way to approach the misuse of categories. "If you seriously think that characters like Chris Adams or the Man with No Name belong in a cowboys category"—I don't, as you can see by my lack of revert here. But characters like Hopalong Cassidy, Sheriff Woody, and Yosemite Sam most certainly do belong in that category, so there is no reason to remove them (not at least without discussion).

As for me being "someone who clearly has no understanding of what a category is for and does not recognise definition of categories", I genuinely hope that you will enlighten me. If I have fundamentally misunderstood a Wikipedia guideline in any way, I'd really like to know. – Rhain ☔ 11:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Quick query about image upload (Housers)

Hi there, thank you for locating and uploading a freely licensed image of Dan and Sam Houser (File:Sam Houser and Dan Houser.png). I just had a quick question: Do you know what date the photograph was taken? The date listed is identical as the upload date so I presume it is not that one. Thanks, regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: Unfortunately, the date wasn't provided to me, and I'm unable to find it myself; the only information I was given is that it was taken in the 2010s (and at least after 2011, per the GTA V logo). – Rhain ☔ 23:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see thank you for the response, I have changed the date to simply "2010s".  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that! The Upload Wizard on Wikimedia Commons requires a specific date, which is why I selected the upload date; I forgot to make the manual change afterwards. – Rhain ☔ 21:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: Kiki Wolfkill

I saw you re-added her birthday sourced to separate Twitter posts—I note that the second one has a date of July 8, not 7, so I'm not sure it works as a source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: That's my bad; it's actually from July 7, but Twitter's time zone conversion listed it as July 8 for me. I had intended to write the correct one but it obviously slipped my mind. – Rhain ☔ 22:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi Rhain! I love rainy weather as well as your little umbrella emoji. You also have a beautiful, thundering voice. BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A kitty for you, Rhain!

Because why not?

BiscuitsToTheRescue (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the WP list

For the RDR2 article, you said something about a WP list, what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomyeahboss (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Boomyeahboss: List of video games considered the best. – Rhain ☔ 05:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Kena and Famitsu

[2] What do you mean? What's wrong with my edit? Should I put a link directly to the journal by "cite journal" or do you generally not accept Famitsu here? Give me a link to the consensus for such actions or undo your edit. --Wikifido (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wikifido: Thanks for the message. The problem isn't with the sourcing—we accept both Famitsu and Gematsu—but, per {{Video game reviews}}, we don't include reviews in the table unless they are also cited within the text. Hope that helps. – Rhain ☔ 10:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Now it is clear. Perhaps I’d better not translate the text from Japanese myself, I’ll wait, maybe one of the journalists will translate it. Cheers. --Wikifido (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto (video game)

If by “an old blog” you mean GOURANGA!, they were reliable enough to maintain grandtheftauto.com domain for some time on behalf of the official game publisher :) And the November 28 news entry clearly says “According to DMA's GTA page the worldwide release date is TODAY!” -- not just shipped. Unfortunately, this aforementioned DMA's page wasn't archived or I wasn't lucky enough to find it, but I don't see reason why GOURANGA! would lie about that. Also All Games in the news entry on November 29 says that the full version of GTA is now out, which perfectly coincides with the release on November 28. Anyway, I'm glad that anonymous GamesRadar article from “Edge staff”, that was written 20 years(!) after the release and started the whole October 21 misinformation, is out of the picture. It was a disgrace for Edge, since the magazine issue 50 from October 1997 has GTA preview article which says “GTA is only a few weeks away from completion and is slated for simultaneous late-November release on the PlayStation and PC.” So even “Edge staff” in October 1997 knew the game wasn't to be released on October 21. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se7en Rus (talk • contribs) 14:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Se7en Rus: The fact that it maintained the domain gives it legitimacy, but not reliability, especially considering the phrasing of those posts and the lack of authorship. And yes, it says that DMA claimed that November 28 was the release date, but it also has claims from retailers stating that this was only the "shipped date" and not the actual release date, so it's safer not to use it anyway. – Rhain ☔ 15:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: Sorry to bother, but if there's no doubt about its legitimacy, can we just take their word that DMA indeed announced November 28 as the official release date? Especially considering that other sources of that time either directly name or clearly indicate this date. Se7en Rus (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Se7en Rus: I said that it "gives it legitimacy", not that "there's no doubt about its legitimacy"—and I meant that from a personal viewpoint, not an editorial one. The website is still unreliable. If you can provide "other sources of that time" that "clearly indicate this date", then please feel free. – Rhain ☔ 16:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC) (no need to ping me, this is my talk page)

Well, I just did: GOURANGA! & Campaign directly name November 28, with GOURANGA! citing DMA Design itself as their source of information. And than All Games Network reported on November 29 that the full game “is now out”, which is clear indication of the recent release. So if there's still doubt about GOURANGA! being reliable in this case, it is kinda baffling me how is this possible that on the one hand just an anonymous article written two decades later and casually pointing at random date without any further context or explanation was accepted as credible source, yet on the other hand highly reputable in the old school GTA community web site isn't considered trustworthy to repeat something posted by developers and already corroborated by another independent source. Se7en Rus (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Se7en Rus: I meant a source besides the Campaign one. All Games Network says "out now" the next day; while it probably refers to November 28, it doesn't do so explicitly, so it's unusable (not to mention that it isn't considered reliable). GamesRadar is considered a reliable source by the Video Games WikiProject, which is why it was allowed, not to mention that it was the only source we had. As for GOURANGA!, you answered your own question: it's a community web site, which is not allowed for claims like this per WP:UGC. – Rhain ☔ 00:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the links, I'm not a regular Wiki contributor as you might've noticed, so it was really helpful. As for putting GOURANGA! into UGS category, I'd say it was classic example of an early days Fansite, so while the guidelines say “fansites usually do not qualify as a reliable source” the wording implies that sometimes (not usually) they might actually do. Especially considering the following phrase: “Quoting the rule of thumb: "...the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is."” And in this particular case with GTA it was what could be exactly described as some degree of scrutiny and fact-checking: GOURANGA! not just re-posted something that was published on the game developers page (November 28 release date) but also encouraged its readers to check game availability in stores and report back. That's why I suppose it should deserve at least some reliability even by guidelines standards. Se7en Rus (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Se7en Rus: Without the ability to verify DMA's original statement, there's no way to tell if the site is reliable or not. Either way, I don't think it really matters, since we already have a source in the article. It's useful to editors for verification, but there's no need to use it in the article. – Rhain ☔ 05:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, you earlier mentioned difference between shipped date and actual release. I think that's the kind of confusion about GTA 3. It is widely presumed to be released on October 22, 2001 while multiple different sources from that time (including GOURANGA! too, but thankfully not limited to them) reported October 22 as a shipping date. So evidently it was released on October 23rd (Tuesday is the usual day for North American releases AFAIK), and Rockstar themselves posted about it: https://web.archive.org/web/20011113185851/http://www.rockstargames.com/GrandTheftAuto3/html/news.html Should I edit GTA 3 page with that link as a source would it be considered as sufficient proof? Se7en Rus (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

October 22 is considered the "release date" for GTA III by many different reliable sources—whether or not it actually hit stores on that date is a different story. It's a little more complicated with the first GTA, since there isn't really a widely-reported date to begin with, but I think November 28 is the safest bet. – Rhain ☔ 12:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia try to reflect what did actually happen instead of what is considered? And what source is more reliable than the GTA III official site from 2001 I linked above? The problem with those many different sources that consider October 22 as GTA III release date is that they mostly just reiterate each other and came from the same misinterpretation of one original news article it seems. Now, currently GTA III Wikipedia page has link to some IGN publication about game characters as a source for October 22 release date, although it doesn't provide any information about release date per se, only the excerpt from IGN database. So it isn’t proper source at all. Here is IGN news article from October 2001 that apparently started it all. Let’s read what it says on the matter: “Grand Theft Auto III is shipping to retail stores on Monday, October 22, and will be in retails stores as early as Tuesday, October 23. […] Due on October 23, Grand Theft Auto III retails for a MSRP of $49.95 and is rated M, for mature.” So, October 22 directly named as shipping date, while the game release to the customers was due on October 23. Even the IGN itself, that broke the news about "October 22" in the first place, still considered October 23, 2001 as GTA III release date at the time. Let’s try GameSpot, another major video games outlet. It also lists GTA III release date as 10/23/2001. Combined with the archived copy of GTA III official site itself and keeping in mind business practice to release games for North American market on Tuesdays (Oct 23, 2001), not Mondays (Oct 22, 2001), it’s pretty much clear the actual release date was October 23 as stated by three reliable contemporaneous sources including official one, and the whole "October 22" thing began some time later by misinterpreting shipping date as release date and then perpetually repeating that misconception over the years. — Se7en Rus (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Se7en Rus: Good find with those sources—the Rockstar one wasn't enough on its own (the language is a little ambiguous, and could be interpreted differently) but the evidence is pretty damning with IGN and GameSpot. I've made the change. – Rhain ☔ 08:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad to be helpful with the sources, and thank you for the edit. I’ve also made changes to the GTA series page to correct first game release date. — Se7en Rus (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads up about possible DMCA

Hey Rhain, just giving you a heads up about a possible DMCA takedown of an image you uploaded if Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoe Saldana signature.svg ends as "Keep". Axem Titanium (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Review trade

I noticed that Kena has been waiting for a review for a while - would you be interested in a GA review trade? I currently have nominations up for two tabletop RPG articles (Hunter: The Reckoning and Kindred of the East), and would be happy to review Kena in exchange for a review of either of them.--Alexandra^IDV 12:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexandra IDV: Thanks for the offer! I'd be happy to do a trade—I'll take Kindred of the East. I may not be able to get to it straight away, but should hopefully have first comments by the weekend. – Rhain ☔ 14:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Great! No worries, take your time.--Alexandra^IDV 15:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kena: Bridge of Spirits

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kena: Bridge of Spirits you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kena: Bridge of Spirits

The article Kena: Bridge of Spirits you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kena: Bridge of Spirits for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kena: Bridge of Spirits

The article Kena: Bridge of Spirits you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kena: Bridge of Spirits for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alexandra IDV -- Alexandra IDV (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LA Noire research comparison.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LA Noire research comparison.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 17:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Development of BioShock Infinite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ken Levine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Lmao

Spyro and crash trilogies are remake. Deal with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.61.63 (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Got some sources?

I've been trying to stitch together at least a rudimentary Start article for Grove Street Games (currently in my sandbox) as it has been mentioned frequently in recent coverage of The Trilogy. However, I'm mostly finding only name drops (a whole lot thereof) and not significant coverage. Since you have already sifted through a lot of sources for The Trilogy's article, I was wondering, have you found anything that could be of value for a potential article on GSG? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder: Funnily enough, I was thinking of doing the same thing a few days ago, when I came across the Portugese and Italian articles. Unfortunately, I think what you've found is correct: there isn't much significant coverage, it's mostly name drops whenever one of their ports is released (and even then, most outlets fail to name them). I certainly wouldn't be opposed to the publication of what you've got so far—unsurprisingly, you've done great work—but I think it's going to be difficult to find much more information for now. Hopefully the publicity surrounding The Trilogy will change that. – Rhain ☔ 22:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I was hesistant to publish it due the scarcity of sources and likely unnotability. With your backing, I just created the article. Obviously, I will continue to look for more sources. Can you keep an eye out for information when browsing sources for The Trilogy? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course—more than happy to help. – Rhain ☔ 10:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Carl Johnson

I don't understand why you reverted my change on the Carl Johnson page. CJ's appearance changes in Definivite edition. Nora3547 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nora3547: You have uploaded the image claiming that you own it, which is certainly not the case; it is a copyrighted screenshot from a video game, and thus does not belong on Wikimedia Commons. I have nominated the file for deletion. If you'd like to learn more about uploading non-free content, I'd recommend familiarising yourself with WP:NFC. – Rhain ☔ 14:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The picture is not mine, I got it from the fandom site Nora3547 (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nora3547: Exactly. However, when you uploaded the image, you used a template claiming that it is self-published and your "Own work", which means it is incorrectly tagged and will be removed. You cannot upload random findings to Wikimedia Commons; you must ensure that they are available in the public domain or under a Creative Commons license. – Rhain ☔ 14:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ok, thanks a lot Nora3547 (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

also, This screenshot is not rockstar's own image. have a nice day Nora3547 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nora3547: The copyright of video game screenshots is held by the publisher; in this case, that's Rockstar. – Rhain ☔ 14:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

thanks for information Nora3547 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

List of most expensive video games to develop

You can try, but nothing will stop Star Citizen fans from updating that number :P -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case, but at least I can say I tried! – Rhain ☔ 15:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Crusade (Doctor Who), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black ant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Reply

I wanna have nothing to do you anymore, all I was doing is adding reliable sources in the articles of the voice actors all you were doing is trolling me. I’ve looked at your history and it turns out you gave others users a hard time too. Plus, you got blocked before for edit warring against a user, so look who’s talking. All I was asking you is to stop with your edit warring and get you refuse to listen, I know I didn’t mean what I said before, but that’s because you were giving me a hard time and putting so much stress on me. All this frustrating you keep giving me is making me let out my frustration on you. Plus, you ever kept on writing sarcastic messages in the edit summaries and making up lies about me. First off, you don’t even know me, why do you have so much have over a person you don’t even know… You need to learn to change your ways when you edit articles next time, edit warring against other users doesn’t make you look good. You should at least talk it over with them politely instead of arguing with them back and fourth constantly. Even making up lies of a user is not a smart idea too, because that’s also a personal attack. Please learn that next time, it will help change your ways when you edit. Like now, I’m perfectly calm talking to you right now, I’m not even attacking you. I’m just teaching you some lessons and helping you change your ways, that’s all. 2600:1000:B028:6B89:8D5A:A93D:9387:3130 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If you "wanna have nothing to do [with me] anymore", maybe don't post an unprompted message on my talk page to 'teach me some lessons', or look through years of my edit history to try and find some dirt on me? If you're getting frustrated and angry so often, maybe step back and stay cool before taking it out on others, and consider taking responsibility for your emotions instead of blaming others for them. I tried talking politely, but your initial messages of "no, your still wrong" and "Do not touch this again" aren't very reflective of somebody willing to have a conversation—not to mention "there is no way I’m gonna take this ridiculous edit to the talk page". Please familiarise yourself with WP:BRD; when challenged, you need to start the discussion, not other users. I'd also recommend reading WP:3RR to understand how edit warring works. I sincerely hope you take the effort to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, because you clearly have good intentions behind your edits and I think you could do good things on here. All the best. – Rhain ☔ 23:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Again you continue to lie about me! again that’s another lie. Now your gonna be sarcastic towards me when I have done nothing wrong to you, I guess trying to reason with you is just not worth it, because yet you continue to blame me. Well all those things I said were true, because Wikipedia has been going downhill since 2015. I wasn’t trying to throw dirt on you, I was just using that as an example on why you should do what you did before, because you started this mess, not me. We can play the victim game all you want, but what you still did was wrong too. Warn me again without the sarcasm, you were not being polite at all, you kept on writing disrespectful messages towards me in the edit summaries, which is harassment. Saying this and that about a user is harassment. I’m gonna ask you again, stop writing lies about me! The reason I said all those in my edit summaries because you wouldn’t leave me alone, I just wanted to edit in peace. Wikipedia has gone too far with its strict rules and every user knows it. That’s why everyone gets angry and stressed out because you guys revert edits over stupid reasons, yet whenever we try to explain ourselves you guys always blame the harassments on us, just like you did. That’s why us users get angry at you guys because you guys will not listen what we have to say, we have nothing to defend ourselves with because you guys will always go out of your way to blame everything on us, plan and simple. Because there are a lot of users I’ve seen out there complain about you guys constantly. Can’t you guys just learn to stop treating users so horribly? 2600:1000:B03D:8757:DD8:1F68:E381:6F8A (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what lies you're referring to. If you think Wikipedia has become too strict with its rules, then that's fine, but edit warring on an article about a video game character will not solve that issue; take it out on a place like the Teahouse, not on editors simply trying to enforce the guidelines. "Edit[ing] in peace" is entirely possible, but Wikipedia is a collaboration, so you can't expect your changes to go unnoticed. As for harassment: I'd be cautious about accusing others of "disrespectful messages" after saying things like "it's like I'm talking to a brick wall towards you", "you guys are a bunch of cry babies", and "you guys are so dumb". If you feel as though you have been wronged and/or disrespected, I apologise for my role in that, but I stand by my edits. I recommend that you move on from this and place your effort into something more constructive. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I wanna accept you apology, but I just don’t know if I can after what you said about me. Saying to me "you're likely not as nice as you think you are." Is pretty much an insult towards a user, but again I know I didn’t mean what I said before: "it's like I'm talking to a brick wall towards you", "you guys are a bunch of cry babies", and "you guys are so dumb". I just get so irritated when users refuse to listen what I have to say, I try so hard to be polite to them, but all I get is sarcastic posts on my talk page whenever I try to be nice to them. Because I’m on the autism spectrum and I get very sensitive over what users write about me and say lies about me that are not even true. Because there users don’t know me and they shouldn’t judge a user all because for what they say in the edit summaries, and its make my anxiety even worse for me when users say stuff like that about me. But again, I wanna accept your apology, but I just don’t know anymore. Because all I was doing is trying to make the video game characters articles better, that’s all. 2600:1000:B024:FFC0:999C:E8F1:AD1B:2A77 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's easier said than done, but try not to take things to heart. We're all anonymous keyboards behind computer screens, so it's easy to forget that there are people sitting behind them. If you're getting anxious about something, step away; go and edit something else, or make some edits in the sandbox (or in your own sandbox, if you make an account). There are 6.4 million articles on English Wikipedia; there'll always be another one out there for you. – Rhain ☔ 00:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert on Game of the Year Award 2021

Hey! I saw that you reverted my edit to the article. YOu said that the it links to the article about the film for that reason. I figured it would still be a good idea to specify that it's the film and not the game since 1. Games also receive trailers (And it wouldn't be unlikely for a trailer to be presented at the event) and 2. Someone might think it's a remake of the game. I figured it would be a good idea to discuss it with you per WP:BRD. Your revert to my edit on Reggie Fis-Ame I understand since you said a reliable source considered it notable and there was a bunch of attention drawn to it at the time. I think that might be better suited under the section for his personal life since that's not necessarily related to Nintendo outside of him having created it after retiring. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: The "Announcements" section already clarifies that it's a film. If someone might think it's a remake of the game, all they have to do is click the link and find out—I just think the clarification is unnecessary and inconsistent. As for Reggie, I don't personally mind where the information is placed, so feel free to move it if you prefer. – Rhain ☔ 14:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah alright that sounds good. I'll go ahead an boldly move the information that Reggie made a Twitter account after retiring from Nintendo to a more appropriate section. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Chase (Doctor Who), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piscine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas courtney photo

Please change this photo. It is so distressing to see Nick looking so ill. I feel sure family, friends and his fans will find this image as distressing as I do. He would have hated looking like this. He would have hated looking so ungroomed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomytwo (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

He looks great to me, and I find the image a vast improvement over the previous one. Regardless, it's not for us to say what he would have wanted. – Rhain ☔ 12:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Undead Nightmare cover

Regarding the cover being zombiefied, it seemed obvious to me as I had assumed that most readers would've also looked at the article for the original game. This is a DLC after all. But yes those 2 covers are in different articles. I'm just going to leave it alone and if you think it's better to readd the caption then go ahead. If you are going to readd, I will suggest using "homage" over "parody" though per Rockstar. -- Wrath X (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Kena: Bridge of Spirits

Hello, I have translated your article into Chinese, but I need a url source to upload this file→[[File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - bomb gameplay.gif]], so can you tell me where can I find it? Finally, Thank you for your amazing works on "Kena: Bridge of Spirit"! --Mısaka🌩️M1koto 20:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jacklamf1d14: That's fantastic, your translation looks great! The gameplay clip was recorded by me, so there's no specific URL to link to—perhaps you could link to the original English Wikipedia file? Let me know if you need anything else. – Rhain ☔ 20:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment! But I'm still working on the "Critical response" section, and I cannot translate the article without your effort. About the file, Chinese wiki can allow you to upload a file without a url source, but it's better to have the url, otherwise it'll be very likely to be deleted. I have uploaded it in my own word, hopefully it won't be found by the admin. All in all , thank you for your reply! --Mısaka🌩️M1koto 21:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Apology

Hey Rhain, I’m just letting you know I’m sorry for calling you a troll before. I realize now that all you were just doing is following the Wiki policy and to prevent vandalism on the Crash Bandicoot article, although I was trying to put in sources for the voice actors, but you still had to do what you had to do. I just wish I can delete that previous talk page message I posted here on you talk page before, because I’m really embarrassed now for the way I spoke to you and in my edit summaries when I was making changes back and fourth on the article. I just really hope you can forgive me, I don’t like making users like you look like the bad guy, because you literally did nothing wrong. I was just angry about my edits being reverted and I took out my frustration on you. Again, you were just doing your thing as a user is suppose to do. Although the article is unprotected now, I wanna try and help work this out and just discuss it on the talk page so it won’t happen again. Once again, I’m sorry. 2600:1000:B00B:4629:158C:518C:8D1B:CB8 (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, and the effort you took in writing it. Despite your edits being reverted, it's clear that they had promise and were made in good faith, so I look forward to seeing what else you work on—feel free to make an account! All the best. – Rhain ☔ 12:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - facial expression library.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - facial expression library.gif, 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. Wcam (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - Rot.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kena Bridge of Spirits - Rot.gif, 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. Wcam (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Romans (Doctor Who)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Romans (Doctor Who) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Romans (Doctor Who)

The article The Romans (Doctor Who) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Romans (Doctor Who) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ExcellentWheatFarmer -- ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

"throughout the greater Chicagoland area"

It's a thing that bugs us. It's "Chicago" or the "Chicago area". More elaboration is redundant and looks like bad copy in a used car commercial. Speciate (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Speciate: Whether or not it "bugs [you]" or "looks like bad copy" is ultimately irrelevant if it's used by reliable sources. The term is used nine times in the lead at Chicago metropolitan area, so I'd recommend raising it there if it's a genuine issue. – Rhain ☔ 00:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a genuine issue. It is unencyclopedic, and bad writing. The long-standing consensus at WP:WikiProject_Chicago is that it should be avoided as much as possible. Speciate (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Speciate: Besides this move discussion from almost 15 years ago, I can't find anything on the WikiProject that demonstrates a consensus. I'd recommend having a specific discussion or essay that you can link to when modifying the term; otherwise, it just comes across as a personal issue. – Rhain ☔ 22:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There's many discussions, plus we met IRL a number of times. I'd suggest that you should defer to editors who care about a topic, and continue to build the encyclopedia. Speciate (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Speciate: Then link to those discussions, and consider aggregating them into a linkable essay. Wikipedia is built on guidelines and discussions; saying "defer to editors who care" is dismissive of other editors who might also care but did not partake in these discussions or meet IRL. If a newer editor wanted to join the project, simply saying "There's many discussions" wouldn't assist in their understanding of Wikipedia processes, nor would it actually expand upon why this "consensus" exists in the first place. A link to one semi-recent discussion is all that's really needed. – Rhain ☔ 23:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What I'm going to do is continue removing the offending verbiage. I'll try to include more edit summaries going forward. Speciate (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

bro

please, let’s keep trevor’s info box colour as orange — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxzcx (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Xxzcx: There have been discussions about this, which is why I'm reverting. If you feel strongly, start a discussion on the talk page and see if others agree with you. Continuing to revert instead is disruptive. – Rhain ☔ 03:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

but the colours add some life and character to the article, don’t you agree? do you have a heart, rhain? Xxzcx (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

N-Sane

You must really love to spread bullshit. You know forms fact I’m right — Preceding unsigned comment added by N-Sane Maniac (talk • contribs) 09:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@N-Sane Maniac: My thoughts are irrelevant, I'm just following the consensus. If you feel so strongly about it, start a discussion. – Rhain ☔ 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)