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.

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article The Paper Kingdom 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 KmartEmployeeTor -- KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard on that and there is a third film in development Meowyme0407 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ruining my hard work. Meowyme0407 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary explains why. There is no official announcement yet and right now it is entirely based on speculation without any official, substantive info. I understand that you worked on that section but please wait until some actual information comes out about the film besides Lillard's three-picture deal and a Steam community post that didn't even verify the idea of the third film being based on the third game (as far as I could tell). λ NegativeMP1 20:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it was a lie that there was going to be a third film I didn't know the second film was that bad that there couldn't be another movie... Meowyme0407 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never going to edit anymore pages again. Meowyme0407 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the third film isn't going to happen. I'm saying that the information shouldn't be added to the article on the second film until an official statement comes out about its development. λ NegativeMP1 21:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit FNAF anymore. Meowyme0407 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I apologize for that. Iacowriter (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I can definitely see how it's something one would infer based on previous knowledge of the series. Just unclear it's status in the film continuity yet. λ NegativeMP1 00:10, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In January 2023, in an interview on the podcast WeeklyMTG, Lillard revealed that he signed a three-picture deal with the studios" It needs to be removed since you said it wasn't factual or official and there won't be sequels. Meowyme0407 (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that's in the context of any sort of sequel happening, and a second film already happened. So the inclusion there is fine as the film already released. It's just not appropriate to cite that as the only source for a third film happening when there is absolutely nothing else about it.

Also, please stop with the whole "the second film was so bad that there won't be a third one". That's not at all what I have been getting at. Competence is required. λ NegativeMP1 02:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was acting threating to you and I didn't mean to troll and I'm taking a break from Wikipedia, and you do an amazing job and sorry for my harassment. Meowyme0407 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I wanted to let you know that I've been making improvements to ...And Justice for All, including expansions on reception and the mention of fan edits that include bass such as ...And Justice for Jason. I think the comp section is in good shape, really the only thing that might be able to be expanded on is recording, but I'd need to look at other sources for that. Anyways, I thought you'd be interested :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: it's definitely looking a lot better than a few months ago! It's probably maintained enough at this point where I don't think anyone would bring up issues with the article in a hypothetical GTC. Assuming a topic on Metallica albums is still the goal (I haven't been particularly motivated to work on large article rewrites recently so I'm yet to make any major progress on Hardwired and 72 Seasons like I said I would back then). λ NegativeMP1 00:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I haven't either. Been gaming a lot in my spare time, cleaning up my trophy list. I still intend on doing St. Anger one of these days though, as that needs a major rewrite. I've been into Justice lately (mainly bass mixes on Youtube) and I can't game at the moment so I thought I'd take a gander at that. One day we'll get there! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justice was always my personal favorite album from them, probably my favorite album overall despite the mixing. One long term goal I hope to achieve at some point is getting "One" to GA, but that's gonna be a monumental task and require a ton of sourcing I can't easily access right now.

I think I probably have more motivation and long term goals for improving the articles on Metallica songs rather than the albums. Because, good lord, almost every article on a Metallica song is garbage, and there's a TON of songs that are almost certainly notable and yet somehow don't have articles. But one thing at a time... λ NegativeMP1 01:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Springsteen stuff is the same way. His song articles are in such bad shape, and don't get me started on his tour articles. Unfortunately, there's only so much one person can do... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, I think I actually have a better idea of what to do with this source Lofi Gurl (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding at least, I was just hoping I wasn't coming off as harsh since I've reverted a few of these edits at this point. I'd imagine that if Gerard Way's article had some sort of "Impact" section (which it probably could...? I mean it's Gerard Way) then the list could probably be placed there somewhere, but for the lead, I don't think it's fully acceptable.

Same for the list you added to Panic! at the Disco, which I also reverted an edit at and will explain further here. The list from Consequence would be fine to include if a Legacy section actually existed in the band's article, which one definitely could. But IMO this is like an "all or nothing" approach. I'd rather not have a legacy section characterized by one list, feels WP:UNDUE and unrepresentative of the band's legacy when there's most definitely more than just that one list, y'know? λ NegativeMP1 03:54, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you put the source in the Artistry section instead [1]. For now at least, that's probably fine. λ NegativeMP1 03:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from about the Impact/Legacy section. Makes sense to me. I'm glad you're happy with my addition to the Artistry section. Lofi Gurl (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello NegativeMP1, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! λ NegativeMP1 19:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]