User talk:Cognissonance/Archive 2

bro
why do you revert every edit to the cyberpunk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily piping a link and poorly re-uploading and describing the same image as the original for the gameplay, make no sense whatsoever. Cognissonance (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Signature updates
You are presently updating your signatures by hand, would you want me to do an AWB run for you later today? Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 16:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it takes care of the rest. Thanks, man. Cognissonance (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, all ✅. Have a nice day! Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Question about your revisions on Vampyr (video game)
Why did you revert some of my revisions on Vampyr (video game)?

Inter qwark talk  contribs 09:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Denuvo Anti Tamper does not go anywhere. It is the article's style not to capitalise cite; as per WP:CITEVAR, I changed it. I have done this a long time and every time, the ref name standards of the Metacritic aggregates are MCPC, MCPS4, and MCXONE. I already explained that the last edit improved the prose. Cognissonance (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I didn’t know there were ref name standards regarding Metacritic reviews.
 * Anyway, the link had a hyphen. Still, I didn’t know that the Denuvo Anti-Tamper redirect didn’t exist. I’ve created it now.
 * Anyway2, “If killed, they impart to Reid their last thought” is an awkward sentence. “If killed, they impart their last thought to Reid” is fine and not awkward. Why change it?
 * Also, you reverted other edits of mine while reverting the ones you intended, but I’ve fixed that. Inter qwark talk  contribs 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed any mention of Reid in that sentence to make it less awkward. Cognissonance (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Reid makes the sentence less ambiguous. The sentence was fine as it was. Inter qwark talk  contribs 09:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This was my first edit because this game's wiki page does not give any more details to the plot endings and was incomplete. Atleast one edning would have sufficed but I felt to mention them all since I completed the game 5 times to see alternate endings IGuy2810 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the error IGuy2810 (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

In the 'ending' IGuy2810 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My last question regarding this topic. Did I, in any way violate any wiki laws when the edit was made? IGuy2810 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Plots of video games with multiple endings vary, as there is no specific rule against summarising them. I took the decision to simply write what has to happen, like I did in my first article Life Is Strange. The content on Wikipedia should also be of high quality, which I'm sorry to say your additions lacked. I have nominated Vampyr for Good Article status as well and, as such, the article cannot afford new additions like that. If you'd like to know more, see WP:10SIMPLERULES. Cognissonance (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So can I add at the end that at the point where the player meets William Marshal the game ends according to the player's choices made in the game? IGuy2810 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't. Cognissonance (talk) 02:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I will suggest you to do it, as long as you will be bold.--Biografer (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you exacerbating a content dispute over an article I have nominated for Good Article status? Cognissonance (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Vampyr image
It's strange, to me it appears to be exactly under the info box. By default an image is positioned on the "right", but at the right there is the info box so the image is pushed under it. I thought could be my screen, browser letters scaling or screen resolution, but even if it is so, I was asking my self how many people could happen the same thing. After all, leaving the image on the left, doesn't change that much. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On my browser, the second paragraph is underneath the infobox, and then the image appears next to the third. I prefer that the image be positioned on the right because of how I assume readers' eyes will be more comfortable, but it's not the end of the world to do otherwise. Cognissonance (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is what it looks like for me., if that’s okay. Inter qwark talk  contribs 14:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's about the browser letters scaling then, or something like that. That's nothing wrong with that, of course. But the things to me, appear to be exactly how Interqwark shown. What you say about reader's eye really make sense, actually. But the visualization how Interqwark shown could be so even for others, so as him I think this should be on the left. Agreed? Lone Internaut (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can accept that, although the image should be beside the text that it's referencing. Cognissonance (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine, with it. Thank you, a pleasure to collaborate. Lone Internaut (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Vampyr (video game) edits
Regarding, I don’t see why you brought up WP:CITEVAR. Your edits concern two optional parameters of the template, not the style of the article’s citations.

Anyway, access-date (alias: accessdate) is not useless. It doesn’t just show when an editor added the citation. The date can be updated by another editor who checks the source for the information that is being cited. If the page being cited is updated and its information is changed or it goes offline, an editor can check the access date and find an archive that corresponds to said date to find the most accurate archive of the page.

Also, Metacritic pages don’t have publication dates, and per the template documentation of Template:Cite web, the access-date parameter is for online sources without publication dates. I’m not exactly sure if this applies to Metacritic pages, but it wouldn’t hurt including the parameter.

publisher is probably not needed for Metacritic, but again, it wouldn’t hurt including it. Inter qwark talk  contribs 17:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These two optional parameters are not in the rest of the citations in the article, as per my citation style. I'll archive the sources, whose dates will be easy to substantiate, unlike accessdate=, which anyone can falsify without correction. According to Template:Cite web, publisher= should not be used for websites. Cognissonance (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think style more concerns formatting, punctuation rules, etc.
 * Anyway, where does it say that publisher shouldn’t be used for websites on Template:Cite web? Inter qwark talk  contribs 22:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website)." Cognissonance (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t that mean not to use it for the name of the work as in, say, the title of the book? Inter qwark talk  contribs 22:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Too vague a description to tell. Cognissonance (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

“Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work” probably means that the parameter should be used for the publisher of the work, rather than its title, the domain name of the website, the name of the website, etc. Inter qwark talk  contribs 22:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the meaning, the website is the most essential information for the reader. Adding to that is redundant. Cognissonance (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * May I suggest, websiteMetacritic publisherCBS Interactive. At least, we should acknowledge that Metacritic is a website in refs only, because it is owned by CBS Interactive.--Biografer (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Useless. Cognissonance (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To you, yes. To editors such as me and is not. :)--Biografer (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dishonored 2 Corvo vs Emily Gameplay.webm listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dishonored 2 Corvo vs Emily Gameplay.webm, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the 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. Ron h jones (Talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dunkirk Critical Reception & editing for non-specificity
THe following is a copy & paste directly from the talk page of Dunkirk (2017), because apparently you can't read, don't care, or just like making sentences worse:

Can someone explain to me why they keep editing the intro to the less specific "one of the greatest war films." in the critical reception section of the intro? In the CR section proper, it's named as "one of the greatest war films ever made" and the former is clunky, less specific, and almost non-functional as a descriptor. Greatest war films of what? of when? In what category? It's not as though it's not suppported by references/not in other places in the article. Editing now and would like a response before it's changed back either here or on my talk page.BROBAFETT (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * None of which constitutes a consensus on the matter. Cognissonance (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, I'm sorry, do you honestly think I"m not familiar with Wiki practices? There's not a consensus on the matter just because you chose to author it in a nonsensical way, and there doesn't need to be a consensus on the editing or correcting of grammatical errors lol. The sentence, as-is, is dangling; "greatest" needs to be quantified by a time period or category ie "in history", "of all time" "ever made", "of the last 25 years" (which you would, of course, need a source for).

"Greatest", in this sentence, is what's referred to as a "superlative adjective", meaning that it conveys that the noun its describing possesses more of a certain quality (ie greatness) than something else in a specific group. -est verbs require a comparison to be quantified (or even make sense). (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/comparatives-and-superlatives/comparison-adjectives-bigger-biggest-more-interesting) You can't edit a sentence to be grammatically incorrect because you like it better.

If its sourcing you need to make you feel better about this specific change, I refer you to the Critical Reception category proper in which it's referred to, by source, as "one of the greatest war films ever made". Why, exactly, would you make it less specific in the intro? For what possible benefit to the reader? I don't know if you're not familiar with English composition or what, but it literally looks like a chopped off sentence the way you have it. To not specify a time period or category, the sentence would need to be "a great war film" (which, since its not a superlative adjective used to refer to critical consensus, would make it sound like you're just referencing some specific critic who uncreatively referred to the film as "great"). I'll refer you to the AP style guide if you need further assistance on the matter. BROBAFETT (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "ever made" is a useless qualifier to something that is clearly stated and understood. Cognissonance (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read, you know, any of this? Again, the critical reception page of this very article would disagree with you... the adjective "greatest" requires context and I think I do a pretty thorough job of showing why in the comment above. There ARE actual rules about this stuff that supersedes your personal preference you know...

Your inability to take my raising measured and thoughtful points seriously is very disappointing, and belies an immaturity that isn't suitable for an accomplished editor of Wikipedia. Referring this to Dispute resolution as we speak. BROBAFETT (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Take more time with one edit next time, instead of spamming my talk page with multiple. Cognissonance (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What about this conversation, prey tell, makes you think that we've now hit at a point at which its appropriate for you to make a request of me? BROBAFETT (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about your revisions on The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit
Regarding on The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit, why is mentioning that more of the game will be revealed at E3 2018 not relevant?

Regarding, the source is the YouTube video. I don’t think the channel being verified or not has anything to do with the source being reliable, as you indicated in, but I think that a better source is required nevertheless.

Also, why did you remove “free” from the lead section in ? Inter qwark talk  contribs 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You make good edits sometimes, like when you add categories and such, which makes me even more confused when, writing your own content, I see you can't separate the wheat from the chaff. Why add "there will be more information coming" when you can simply add the information when it comes? I agree that a reliable source is needed in place of a YouTube video. My contention is that, without a verification, there is nothing to establish that it is the official channel. Just add "free" back, I don't care that much. Cognissonance (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * has, IGN.
 * I did not re-add “free” to the lead sentence; I added “free-to-play” instead (in ).
 * Also, you are, perhaps, right about the E3 2018-related revision. Inter qwark talk  contribs 21:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding, the lead designers are shown in the YouTube video. I will try to find a different, reliable source, though. Inter qwark talk  contribs 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyberpunk 2077, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cyberpunk_2077 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cyberpunk_2077?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, pal. Cognissonance (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on Cyberpunk 2077
Regarding on Cyberpunk 2077, “sex” shouldn’t be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK, “first-person” and “role-playing video game” shouldn’t be next to each other per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, “visage” is an overly literary way of saying “face,” and First-person (video games) was moved to First-person (gaming).

Regarding the release date, I didn’t add “2019” to the infobox or say that the release date was 2019. I only added a paragraph about how CD Projekt Red has suggested on multiple occasions that the game is going to release next year. I also added a source, and that source was PCGamesN, which is a reliable source per WP:VG/S.

I’m not sure why you reverted the other edits I made, such as the addition of Use British English and a link to CD Projekt Red in the lead, but I’m sure it was because you reverted my entire revision instead of individual edits manually. Inter qwark talk  contribs 14:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "first-person" and "role-playing video game" together makes it easier to read, instead of having "played in" and "in which" making it more difficult. "Face" is too simplistic a word when the article should have professional English (not dumbed down). Added Template:Use British English. No more putative release dates. Cognissonance (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * MOS:SEAOFBLUE says, “When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link.” In this case, it possible to avoid it. “Played in a first-person perspective” is not a phrase that’s difficult to understand, and a slightly longer sentence is better than two links that look like one link.
 * “Face” is not an informal word. “Visage” is an uncommon literary term that most readers will have to google to understand.
 * And what’s wrong with a paragraph about a possible release date? Again, it has a reliable citation.
 * Also, you reverted other edits that I made too. I recommend that you undo the edits that you meant to undo manually in the future rather than reverting entire revisions. Inter qwark talk  contribs 16:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding on Cyberpunk 2077, CD Projekt Red is not the same as CD Projekt. The former links to a section of the latter and may also be its own article in the future, so I don’t see the problem with linking to it even if CD Projekt is linked to earlier in the lead.

Also, it is true that the vague information regarding the release date be unnecessary in the future, but this is the present. Since a full release date hasn’t been confirmed yet, I don’t see the problem with including that short paragraph with the reliable source, as it is the only information regarding the release date available. Inter qwark talk  contribs 05:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With CD Projekt being linked, I don't see why another link should be redirected to the same article. Until CD Projekt Red gets its own article, it's unnecessary. Regarding the release date, the article only includes concrete information about the gameplay, development, and release. I'd hate for one piece of information to diverge from that. Cognissonance (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The link goes to a different section of the article, not just the same article, and not all information has to be concrete. Some information regarding the release date is better than none, right? Inter qwark talk  contribs 23:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not when it's potentially wrong information. Cognissonance (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Dunkirk plot point
I just want to point out a error in the second to last paragraph of the plot section; the plane that Farrier shoots down over the mole, is a dive-bomber, not a fighter; forgive me for my repeating edits, but I think that the correct type of aircraft should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.111.19 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Accessdate?
You don't seem to like the accessdate parameter in citation templates; while I don't either, I put them as a courtesy and for the ease of checking when the site was accessed [by other users] (which is literally what the parameter is for). Our guidelines state that the field is "suggested" (unlike publisher, which is completely optional). Is there a particular reason you dislike it? Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 16:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I used it for every source I formatted until I came across another editor's userpage discounting the parameter as useless. It made sense after thinking about it and I like boiling things down to the essentials – archivedate= can be substantiated on the page that has been archived; the rest, from title= to website=, can also be verified on the page. accessdate= is not useful information to the reader wishing to verify the information cited, cannot be verified in the cited information, and is therefore liable to forgery. Cognissonance (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where exactly do you see this forgery? I for one don't see it as an issue. Sure, its useless to the reader, but its useful for the editors like me and you.--Biografer (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It really isn't. And where the hell did you come from? Cognissonance (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered regarding forgery assumption. Where did you got that from? I came from that very hell. :)--Biografer (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone can claim anything that isn't verifiable. Accessdate= is not verifiable. I already made this point. Cognissonance (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd assumption that accessdate establishes verifiability. Accessdate is there to let us, editors, know when the url was least accessed. It have nothing to do with WP:Verify.--Biografer (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The point that Cognissonance is trying to make here is that accessdates are not verifiable, it however does not add to or neglect the verifiability of the accompanying source and is therefore optional. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 15:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering how often they are being used, they are close to be mandatory, although our guideline says it differently. Accessdates are used on par with title and while the later is mandatory (the later and url that is), accessdates are not, but they are used as often. For example, there was more then a couple of instances when accessdate directed me into finding a dead ref through an archive. Of course, while the accessdate was circa 2016 it found me an archive with living link from 2012. Pity, nothing fresher was available. So, that's my story with accessdates... O' and just because one editor suggested something doesn't mean that everyone should follow it.--Biografer (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No one ever stated that you have to omit accessdates just because someone else does so, so I don't see your case. Cognissonance doesn't use them and that's completely fine. I use them as a courtesy and so may you. End of the story. You cannot force other people to use it and other people won't force you to stop using it, wherefore there is actually no need for this discussion, especially since I only initiated simply as a question out-of-interest, not a blame game. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit 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 TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit
The article The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit 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:The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit
The article The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re Koudelka
This is just to say I value your decision in regards to Koudelka, despite my initial shock (marks the end of a 102 article streak of successfully passing GA/FA). I've taken your advice and left a request with the Guild of Copy Editors. I think I may have been overextending myself on Wikipedia recently. I think this experience has - in the most positive way - brought me back down to earth. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope it in no way broke your spirits, with respect to Sakura Wars. You do great superhuman work and, while it feels good to take a breather, I do sometimes use unduly harsh words in reviews. Feel free to call me baka, if need be. Cognissonance (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My spirits aren't so easily rattled. I think being able to admit to one's self that their quality of work is falling and they need to take it slower is one of the signs of a good Wikipedian. And I've been rather late in coming to that. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Detroit: Become Human
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Detroit: Become Human 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vampyr (video game)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vampyr (video game) 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 Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vampyr (video game)
The article Vampyr (video game) 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:Vampyr (video game) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vampyr (video game)
The article Vampyr (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vampyr (video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anarchyte -- Anarchyte (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

If you've got a moment...
Would you be able to take a look at the peer review for Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine? I'd like to make it an FA, and any comments would be appreciated.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. Cognissonance (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reached the plot section and will finish the review when I wake up. Cognissonance (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Best-selling video games
Hi. Is it wrong to add "... has become one of the best-selling ... games." to a video game's reception section? Sebastian James (talk)
 * Unless it's sourced by a few reliable sources, yes. It's quite hard to verify the sales numbers for video games, so the notion that a game has become one of the best-selling is usually not bothered with in articles. What game is it?  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  13:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls. HR has sold 5.3 million copies, and as of 2013, at least 3 million of them are on PS3. PS3 version of B:TS also topped 2 million copies, the total for both PS3 and PS4 is 2.8 million copies. Sebastian James (talk)

Your GA nomination of Detroit: Become Human
The article Detroit: Become Human 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:Detroit: Become Human for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments to QuanticNut and edit warring
I am a little concerned with the comments you left on QuanticNut's talk page, they show a clear lack of good faith and not a small amount of ownership thoughts to an article. You are pointing a new editor to guidelines to support your position that do not say what you think they say, and dismissed their edits as some random user from a subreddit which is not in keeping with Wikipedia's ideals. I'm willing to believe that you've become too focused on trying to make Detroit: Become Human a good article that it has clouded your judgement and you're not viewing things subjectively. I'm going to suggest that you walk away from the article for now, don't edit it other than the talk page, and let other editors take over for a bit. Breathe and clear your head and don't bite the newbies. Canterbury Tail talk 19:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Detroit: Become Human
The article Detroit: Become Human you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Detroit: Become Human for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vampyr (video game)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK hook change
Just in case you wondered why the hook for Vampyr was changed, check this thread. IMO you could have been pinged as the nominator of the original hook, but it's probably too late for that now. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 06:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, all participants of the DYK nom were notified here.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah well, guess I was fooled by the "the DYK hook was rewritten without my knowledge" added to the user page. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was notified where my reply didn't matter because the actual discussion was happening elsewhere. There was no link to the main page from there, so I had to find it through Anarchyte's contribution page. By the time I found out, it was already too late. Despite two users having no problem dropping this rule, Anarchyte went ahead with rewriting the hook anyway. Thing is, I don't like wasting my time on DYKs that will end up hijacked because of rules that make no sense. Cognissonance (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, and I agree that the original hook was interesting. However, the way I read the discussion, (who first mentioned it) took issue with it failing C6,  noted his distaste toward the rule but gave the impression (to me at least) that the hook should be changed, and, I think, was against the premise of the rule too, but supportive of the hook change. Perhaps it's about time someone proposed the removal of C6 on WT:DYK, instead of people tip-toeing around it, being content when its both enforced and unenforced. Either way, I'm sorry if my changing of the hook annoyed you or made you distrust DYK; I think you're a fantastic editor and content creator.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  12:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A suggest
Hi Cognissonance. I saw your nomination for Quantic Dream. It's a really nice article and I would give a suggestion to add something. Following examples like this, could be add a quotebox in the "Philosophy" section? I found this source (page 16-17 / internal manual page 4) in which I believe there is a quote that summarizes the intentions of QD and David Cage: "My desire to create video games dates back to the arrival of 3D real time [...] I felt like a pioneer filmmaker at the start of the 20th century: grappling with basic technology, but also being aware that there is everything left to invent - in particular a new language that is both narrative and visual".

I got the quotebox with text and source ready to put in it. Let me know if you like this idea. Bye! Lone Internaut (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about whether it's needed. I usually only add concrete facts and avoid quote boxes for the same reason, as some people will add puffery between the facts themselves, but I'm not entirely against it. The quote comes from the Fahrenheit manual itself? Cognissonance (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely yes, as you can see by the source. And it was linked by the digital remaster of the game available from PlayStation Store, once downloaded. That's how I discovered it. I simply thought it was an important quotation, since it makes clear the mentality and intent of QD. And because of the period (2000s), if we want to see it from another view: Fahrenheit has catalyzed the kind of modern games made by QD. It was a turning point in their philosophy of making games.


 * But if you're not sure, forget about it. After all it's just a little thing. Lone Internaut (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally like how the article looks already, but I appreciate the suggestion. Cognissonance (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For sure. Bye. Lone Internaut (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You could add it to David Cage though. If I rewrite the article in the future, I'll remember to keep it. Cognissonance (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right. ✅ Lone Internaut (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Detroit: Become Human
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

PR
Would you mind leaving comments at Peer review/Sonic the Hedgehog (8-bit video game)/archive1? If you'd like me to review something in return I'd be glad to. JOE BRO  64  14:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are so inclined, my only GAN is Quantic Dream. A review would be much appreciated. Cognissonance (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've claimed it. JOE BRO  64  12:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantic Dream
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quantic Dream 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 TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantic Dream
The article Quantic Dream 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:Quantic Dream for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantic Dream
The article Quantic Dream you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quantic Dream for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine
Hi. You commented at Jill Valentine's FAC2, which was a long time ago, so I understand if you don't want to get involved again (or even remember commenting in the first place). But JV's FAC3 was dismissed on the basis that I hadn't contacted previous commentators, so I've gone through all previous FACs and "peer reviews" and tried my best to address any issue which had ever been raised. I'm happy with the article as it is now (in that I believe it meets the featured article criteria), but I'd appreciate any feedback from any previous commentator. Do you think there's something I could improve before renominating? And would you be interested in commenting at FAC4? I'd ideally like to address every issue you may have before renominating, so the FAC can be as uneventful as possible. ;) I'd appreciate any feedback you may have, if you have the time. Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jill Valentine was wholly neutral before one feminist editor pushed her bias onto the article, which was overhauled at her behest, thereby making much of it indirectly WP:POV. For that reason, I'd rather not have a part of that article anymore. Cognissonance (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree with any of this. I'm just trying to strike a [somewhat] happy balance between the two sides. That's all I believe can be expected of the article, at this point. Anyway, thanks for responding. It's telling that the people who supported the article during either of the two FACs have been totally forthcoming, while the opposing admins don't even have the common courtesy to take the 10 seconds required to reply to a talk page message. Testament to how little they really cared, I guess. But I digress... Happy editing. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Tonic Trouble
Hey there! I've recently been trying to get the game article Tonic Trouble into a better state (preferably, good article status) but I lack the time to implement larger changes for the Gameplay and Reception sections (the former of which is currently missing). Since it appears as though you are able to write down proper English in a much faster pace that I could, I hoped that you might want to assist me with this article. The game is pretty old and not compatible with Windows above XP, but you can play an N64 ROM if you need an interactive reference. There are 11 different reviews (3 on PC, 8 on N64) for the main game, plus one for the GBC version, that can be easily used to make good content for the two aformentioned sections. I have scans of the EGM, Next Generation and Nintendo Power reviews (and previews) on file, if you need them. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 19:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'll get the energy to do that, as the lack of it has made me less active on Wikipedia, but I'll keep it in mind. Cognissonance (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I can do the reception section soon. What existing content do you want to remain? I'll send you an email via Wikipedia so you know where to send the EGM, Next Generation and Nintendo Power reviews. Cognissonance (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually adamant about any content in the Reception section, as I can expect your turnout to be better than mine. The only thing that is not found in the reviews itself is actually the number of copies sold. Five scanned references are on the way to your inbox. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 12:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey again, I recently dug up a Nintendo Power magazine issue that has a 10-page feature on Tonic Trouble. Do you think you would be able to expand the game's gameplay section a bit based on the feature, as well as the already existing review cites? You can access the mag here. Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 21:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can do the Nintendo Power mag, but as far as I remember, I already went through all the reviews. Cognissonance (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I only used page 15. I was confused when it said there were nine levels. The reviews reported six on Game Boy Color and twelve on Nintendo 64 and Microsoft Windows. I figured naming the levels would be all-the-more confusing, for the same reason. Cognissonance (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's nine main levels--Ski Slope, South Plain (acts a hub to the other eight), Doc's Cave, Vegetables HQ, North Plain, Canyon, Cocktail Glacier, Pyramid, Pressure Cooker--and three bound to boss fights--Magic Mushroom's Hideout, Grogh's Castle and the Final Boss stage. Another, "Crazy Town", was scrapped but I couldn't find a proper source for that. This not an official classificaton, however, so just mentioning that there's twelve levels should be fine. Do you think saying that one level (South Plain) connects to most other is mention-worthy? Regards. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's definitely mention-worthy if you name all the levels. Cognissonance (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you plan on nominating the article soon? Not meant to rush you, just curious. Cognissonance (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm always a bit hesistant when it comes to GA noms, as I have no sense for when an article is ready for it (cf. Rockstar San Diego). This, plus my poor writing skills (e.g. for the plot). My contributions on both articles need some form of copy editing before sumitting to GAN, I think. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could take a look at it if you want, unless you wanna contact the Guild. Cognissonance (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you're up fro that, I'd be happy if you did so. :) Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article is good enough to nominate now. What do you think of the changes? Cognissonance (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I nominated the article. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 16:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ICYMI, it passed. Thanks for your help! { Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, congrats man. I recommend that you nominate it for DYK. Cognissonance (talk) 08:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah I was looking into that, but I'm wondering what would be an interesting fact for this game. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 08:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mostly they want a hook to be linked to real life, so anything unique from Development would work. Cognissonance (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Quantic Dream
Hi Cognissonance

Just to let you know that unfortunately your DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantic Dream has been moved back from the queue to the nomination, following a query at WP:ERRORS2. Please can you have a look over it and see if the issues can be addressed. Once you've had a chance to look at it and maybe revise the text of the hook, ping me and I'll be happy to push it back through quickly. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tonic Trouble gameplay.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Quantic Dream
Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

God of War (upcoming video game) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect God of War (upcoming video game). Since you had some involvement with the God of War (upcoming video game) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Accessdate script
Hi. Just in case you would ever require something like this, I wrote a simple script that removes access dates from citations. I know you hate access dates so you might like this script. Regards. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 20:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks for thinking of me. If it's easy enough to use, I might check it out. I'm useless when it comes to technology though, so I think I will be doing it manually for the foreseeable future. Cognissonance (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , installation and usage is pretty straightforward and explained on the script's page. It basically works like any other regex-based script (like date and citation format scripts). { Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, I just wanted to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing The Death of Superman at its FAC. Don't feel obligated, and I'll review/do a favor for you in return <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  17:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything that needs reviewing, but I'll review yours if / when possible. Cognissonance (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
I've reverted your changes on this article. You removed a valid tag and left instead a vaguely worded and unsupported claim that was not really any different. I've started a talk page discussion on it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Black hole Interstellar.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2077
It's rude and wrong to revert an edit without an explanation, unless it's clear vandalism. Here, I corrected two English errors at once and you reverted with no reason. Please check the new edit summary and if you still disagree (with me and the rest of the English-speaking world) then at least leave an explanation. Thanks! Equinox ◑ 21:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Witcher3Gameplay.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Interstellar
Please indicate what source you are using to arrive at the conclusion that "widow" is a general neutral word. I agree that there *should* be a gender neutral expression but it has not been my impression that Wikipedia policy is to drive beyond citable sources and current accepted usage. Hence why I looked at Dictionary.com (which also cites Collins English Dictionary, with the same result) to determine that in current accepted English (both British and American variants) defines widow as follows:

widow [wid-oh] EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN SEE MORE SYNONYMS FOR widow ON THESAURUS.COM noun 1a woman who  has  lost  her  spouse  by death  and  has  not  remarried. 2 Cards. an additional hand  or part  of a hand,  as one  dealt  to the  table. 3 Printing. a a short last  line  of a paragraph,  especially  one  less  than  half  of the  full  measure  or one  consisting  of only  a single  word. b the last  line  of a paragraph  when  it is carried  over  to the  top  of the  following  page  away  from  the  rest  of the  paragraph. : Compare orphan(def 4). 4a woman often  left  alone  because  her  husband  devotes  his  free  time  to a hobby  or sport  (used  in combination). : Compare golf widow.

verb (used with object), wid·owed, wid·ow·ing.

5 to make (someone)  a widow: She was  widowed  by the  war.

6 to deprive of anything  cherished  or needed: A surprise attack  widowed  the  army  of its  supplies.

SEE MORE Explore Dictionary.comThe Year's Top Word TrendsThe Year's Top Word Trends Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji?Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji? These Are the Longest Words in EnglishThese Are the Longest Words in English These Are the Saddest Phrases in EnglishThese Are the Saddest Phrases in English

Origin of widow

before 900; (noun)  Middle  English  wid(e)we,  Old  English  widuwe,  wydewe;  cognate  with  German  Witwe,  Gothic  widuwo,  Latin  vidua  (feminine  of viduus  bereaved),  Sanskrit  vidhavā  widow;  (v.) Middle  English,  derivative  of the  noun

Related forms wid·ow·ly, adjective un·wid·owed, adjective

Can be confused

widow widower

Related Words for widow dowager, relict

Examples from the Web for widow

Contemporary Examples of widow

That was  accomplished  by cops  such  as the  one  whose  picture  was  clutched  so tightly  by his  widow  on Sunday. The Daily Beast logo Funeral Protest Is Too Much for NYPD Union Boss Michael Daly January 5, 2015

Marjorie Wilkes  Huntley  was  a New  Age  feminist,  a widow, and  a librarian. The Daily Beast logo Wonder Woman’s Creation Story Is Wilder Than You Could Ever Imagine Tom Arnold-Forster November 3, 2014

The truth  is likely  closer  to what  the  widow  told  The  Daily  Beast  in late  July. The Daily Beast logo How Bureaucrats Let Ebola Spread to Nigeria Michael Daly August 14, 2014

The results  would  aid  in the  criminal  investigation  surrounding  the  widow, who  stands  accused  of elder  abuse. The Daily Beast logo Invasion of the Celebrity Body Snatchers, From Charlie Chaplin to Casey Kasem Melissa Leon July 19, 2014

Last year,  his  widow  and  his  brother  pulled  150 of them  for  posthumous  publication,  with  a plan  to release  eight  to 10 per  year. The Daily Beast logo The Drunken Downfall of Evangelical America's Favorite Painter Zac Bissonnette June 8, 2014

Historical Examples of widow

The rest  of the  estate  went  to the  testator's  widow  for  life,  and  then  to charity. The Spenders Harry Leon Wilson

I am in the habit  of boarding  at a quiet  house  kept  by a widow. Brave and Bold Horatio Alger

"I don't believe  we shall  quarrel  on that  point,"  said  the  widow, smiling. Brave and Bold Horatio Alger

Since 1830 the  widow  again  supplicated  the  Tribune  des  Chambres. Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, No. 327 Various

She was  a widow, and  had  loved  her  husband,  and  her  sky  was  still  tinged  with  grey. Viviette William J. Locke

British Dictionary definitions for widow

widow noun

1a woman who  has  survived  her  husband,  esp  one  who  has  not  remarried

2(usually with  a modifier)  informal  a woman  whose  husband  frequently  leaves  her  alone  while  he indulges  in a sport,  etc : a golf  widow

3 printing a short  line  at the  end  of a paragraph,  esp  one  that  occurs  as the  top  line  of a page  or column : Compare  orphan (def. 3)

4(in some card  games)  an additional  hand  or set  of cards  exposed  on the  table

verb (tr; usually passive)

5 to cause to become  a widow  or a widower

6 to deprive of something  valued  or desirable

Derived Forms widowhood, noun

Word Origin for widow Old English  widuwe;  related  to German  Witwe,  Latin  vidua  (feminine  of viduus  deprived),  Sanskrit  vidhavā

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Word Origin and History for widow

n. Old English  widewe,  widuwe, from  Proto-Germanic  *widewo  (cf. Old  Saxon  widowa , Old  Frisian  widwe , Middle  Dutch,  Dutch  weduwe , Dutch  weeuw , Old  High  German  wituwa , German  Witwe , Gothic  widuwo ), from  PIE  adj. *widhewo (cf. Sanskrit  vidhuh  "lonely,  solitary,"  vidhava  "widow;"  Avestan  vithava, Latin  vidua , Old  Church  Slavonic  vidova , Russian  vdova , Old  Irish  fedb , Welsh  guedeu  "widow;"  Persian  beva , Greek  eitheos  "unmarried  man;"  Latin  viduus  "bereft,  void"),  from  root  *weidh-  "to separate"  (cf. second  element  in Latin  di-videre  "to divide;"  see  with).

As a prefix to a name,  attested  from  1570s. Meaning "short  line  of type"  (especially  at the  top  of a column)  is 1904 print  shop  slang. Widow's mite  is from  Mark  xii:43. Widow's peak  is from  the  belief  that  hair  growing  to a point  on the  forehead  is an omen  of early  widowhood,  suggestive  of the  "peak"  of a widow's  hood. Widow maker  "anything  lethally  dangerous"  first  recorded  1945, originally  among  loggers,  in reference  to dead  trees,  etc. The widow  bird  (1747) so-called  in reference  to the  long  black  tail  feathers  of the  males,  suggestive  of widows'  veils.

v. c.1300; see  widow (n.). Related: Widowed ; widowing.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/widow)

I particularly point out the "Can be confused" section

Contrast widow with Widower: widower [wid-oh-er]

EXAMPLES|WORD ORIGIN

noun

1a man who  has  lost  his  spouse  by death  and  has  not  remarried.

Explore Dictionary.comThe Year's Top Word TrendsThe Year's Top Word Trends Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji?Can You Translate These Famous Phrases From Emoji? These Are the Longest Words in EnglishThese Are the Longest Words in English These Are the Saddest Phrases in EnglishThese Are the Saddest Phrases in English

Origin of widower

1325–75; late Middle  English  (see  widow, -er1); replacing  widow  (now  dial.),  Old  English  wydewa

Related forms

wid·ow·ered, adjective wid·ow·er·hood, noun

Can be confused widow widower

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2019

Examples from the Web for widower

Contemporary Examples of widower

He was a widower  whose  only  son  had  already  predeceased  him. The Daily Beast logo New Orleans’ Carnivalesque Day of the Dead Jason Berry November 1, 2014

The public  fingered  Monjack  as a possible  suspect  after  the  widower  opposed  an autopsy—claims  that  he vehemently  denied. The Daily Beast logo ‘Clueless’: How the Greatest Clique of the ‘90s Transformed Into A Shakespearean Tragedy Marlow Stern May 30, 2014

In another village,  a widower  was  picked  up from  a bus  and  forcibly  sterilised;  he died  of an infection  soon  after. The Daily Beast logo Hold Onto Your Penis David Frum, Justin Green November 29, 2012

She also  sports  a sparkly  new  ring  given  to her  by her  boyfriend,  Art  Ortenberg,  the  widower  of Liz  Claiborne. The Daily Beast logo Fashion's Most Feared Critic Jacob Bernstein October 11, 2010

Historical Examples of widower

Mr. John Lambert  was  a millionnaire,  a politician,  and  a widower. Malbone Thomas Wentworth Higginson

Jacob was  tall  and  snuff-colored,  a widower  of three  years'  standing. Tiverton Tales Alice Brown

His relations  with  her  father  and  mother  were  like  those  on which  a widower  son-in-law  might  have  stood. Little Dorrit Charles Dickens

"If there were  not  an ordinance  against  the  hurling  of missiles,"  finished  the  widower. The Gentleman From Indiana Booth Tarkington

"They didn't  bother  Mr. Wetherford  Swift,"  said  the  widower. The Gentleman From Indiana Booth Tarkington

British Dictionary definitions for widower

widower

noun

1a man whose  wife  has  died  and  who  has  not  remarried

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012 (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/widower)

As I stated before when editing the article - I don't care for the construction but do not see any accepted usage that makes widow a gender-neutral word. You appear to quoting from somewhere - please indicate where you're seeing this definition and usage. DavisGL (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ... dude... I already cited the Wikipedia article "widow" which says the adjective is widowed for both sexes. It references Collins English Dictionary and Cambridge English Dictionary. Cognissonance (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I missed the link. Interesting that my purchased version of Collins offers a different take on "widowed" than does the online version. I will revert that back.

DavisGL (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Detroit synopsis
Hey, just wondering why my changes to the Detroit were not an improvement. --Nosaj544 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You needlessly elongate sentences that already do the job with less words. Cognissonance (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. My concern is that the sentences aren't accurate.  Specifically: Connor as a machine doesn't have 'beliefs', he has programming; the androids in CyberLife tower are not conscious persons until Connor awakens them, therefore they shouldn't be referred to as 'everyone', which could further cause confusion that Connor is converting humans too; and Kara's deviancy is her own choice, not something that Todd 'leaves' her with.  I was also concerned with clarifying: 'her' in Kara's opening sentence is needlessly vague and could be misinterpreted to refer to Kara; and the phrase 'replacing the daughter' should be in a past-tense form because Alice at that point no longer is in the state of replacing Todd's daughter. Hope that makes sense. --Nosaj544 (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some changes. The thing with leaving Kara a deviant is just a simpler way of saying she becomes a deviant after the attack. The pronouns are easy to understand the way the sentence is structured. Kara can't escape with herself, so the only her left is Alice. replacing can also be used to refer to the past. Cognissonance (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks for explaining. --Nosaj544 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for winners
Hi. You've recently added GamesIndustry.biz's article for Italian Video Game Awards on Detroit: Become Human, but Italian Video Game Awards' already existing source includes both nominees and winners. So, should we delete the GamesIndustry.biz reference? Sebastian James (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Didn't know it did until I saw the vincitore symbol. Thanks for informing me. Removed. Cognissonance (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Quantic Dream
On 2 May, David Cage celebrated Quantic Dream's 22nd anniversary here. Also, he stated "A massive challenge in matter of development in 1997... We are four people out of the six who worked on the first prototype still present at Quantic Dream today". Should we change the "founded" date, "a team of friends" and "The year this occurred has both been reported as 1997 and 1998."? Sebastian James (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Twitter should only be used if the source is from a verified account. Until he verifies, the others are more reliable. Cognissonance (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quantic Dream's verified account wrote "On May 2, Quantic Dream will be 22 years old. #Happy22QD". Sebastian James (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, info added to both Quantic Dream and The Nomad Soul. Cognissonance (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Should we include PC release dates for Quantic Dream games on the article? Also I updated their logo. Sebastian James <small style="font-size:70%;">what's the T? 19:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I've been waiting for this. Adding it now. Cognissonance (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've found this stating that Detroit: Become Human was met with "widespread critical acclaim and commercial success". Should we use it as a summarization of reception and sales? I know that we should prefer another source to Metacritic's indication when describing these things. Sebastian James <small style="font-size:70%;">what's the T? 11:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not necessary to change the wording. Metacritic is sufficient for what we need. Cognissonance (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The Witcher original cast
Why remove the original Polish actor? You can find plenty of Japanese game articles, for example, that mention both the original Japanese cast and the English cast. Ausir (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Unsourced. Cognissonance (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Aspyr
Is this official website enough for showing Aspyr as a distributor? It says: "© 2017 Published and distributed by Aspyr Media, Inc..." Or should we use only the original distributor? Sebastian James <small style="font-size:70%;">what's the T? 05:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's enough. Cognissonance (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nomad Soul
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Nomad Soul 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 Megaman en m -- Megaman en m (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Nomad Soul
The article The Nomad Soul you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Nomad Soul for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Megaman en m -- Megaman en m (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK for The Nomad Soul
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

"Disruptive edits"
I'm sorry, what? These are not "disruptive edits". I am trying to rewrite sections of the article to give it an actual structure and to make it cohesive. For instance, the version you reverted to started discussing the crew, then location shooting, then the cast, then location shooting, and then went back to the crew. How is that a "structure"? It's just a list of things in chronological order based on the publication date of various sources. It's a mess. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It used to look like this but it can't have sections yet. Your edits remove useful information from the article. Cognissonance (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Most of my edits simply rephrase existing parts of the article. For example, I took this sentence:
 * ''In March 2019, John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki were cast."
 * And turned it into this:
 * ''"John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, and Elizabeth Debicki were cast in March 2019."
 * This second version is better because it uses active rather than passive voice.


 * I also think the article has far too much emphasis on the filming arrangements with the Estonian government. I know this because the mobile site makes recommendations for related articles based on the content of the article. It's currently recommending articles about Estonian politicians and airliners, which means that the wiki software thinks this article is about Estonia, not a film.


 * It's pretty obvious that you're just doing a blanket revert without checking what you're reverting which is WP:OWN behaviour. After all, you're removing parts that improve the clarity of the article. I'm sure you can revise parts you think need work without reverting the lot. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an improvement because the following line is already active. Going from passive to active makes it flow better. I don't care what the mobile site says, the article is not finished. The notes give insight into a production which is also still ongoing. Cognissonance (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ''"Going from passive to active makes it flow better."
 * That's not how the English language works. It's not how any language with active/passive voice works. As a rule, you should avoid passive voice if possible (and it almost always is). Active voice is most appropriate here because the subject of the sentences perform an action (they joined the film). Passive voice would be appropriate if the subject had its state changed, but in this case the subject would be the concept of joining a film. Because the subject is both abstract abd a verb, passive voice makes less sense. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have already broken 3RR. The only reason I didn't warn you sooner is that I thought we were making progress discussing it here. However, your most recent edit to the Tenet article in which you all but restored a previous version of the page says otherwise. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious that the warning you posted to my talk page is a case of tit-for-tat editing. You're going to have a hard time justifying it as edit-warring considering that a) admins decided against action and b) one of my edits changed the following:
 * ''"Principal photography began in May 2019 and will take place in seven countries, including the United Kingdom, Estonia, Italy, and India. On June 30, Pärnu Highway and adjacent streets were closed to make way for filming."
 * Based on your edits, it's not actually clear where the Pärnu Highway is. Is it in the UK, Estonia, Italy, India or any of the three countries that you don't mention at all? Thus, your claim that I am "unnecessary words to sentences" is laughable, as is your claim that they are "already copyedited" (and there is no reason why an article cannot be copyedited more than once). One of the functions of copyediting is to improve the grammar of an article, and the grammar used here is quite poor.


 * Lastly, I suggest that you read WP:OWN as your behaviour clearly indicates that you think you have some ownership over the article, which you do not. You need to learn to accept that other editors are capable of making improvements to an article. Those edits do not need your personal approval. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is clear that it is filmed in Estonia because the wikilink shows that. Nothing else is needed. Why the hell does the name of the mayor matter? "Jennifer Lame will be the film's editor, taking over from Lee Smith, who had previously edited every Nolan film since Batman Begins" unnecessarily lengthens the original sentence, which flowed much better from the previous line. Your writing is all over the place, changing things that were better before and adding things that would be removed if copyedited. Cognissonance (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarenfan17 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * as an outside observer, taking this to DR seems premature at the moment. I see there's a dispute and that Cognissonance doesn't agree with your changes, but The article talk page seems to have no discussion whatsoever. Why don't you start a section there with the things you want to change about the article, discuss them through with Cognissonance, and see if you can reach a consensus. Maybe other editors will have opinions too. Then you only need to go to dispute resolution if the discussion had really failed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Tenet article
I have started a discussion on the Tenet talk page to address proposed changes to the article. Your participation would be appreciated. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Pitfalls moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Pitfalls, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 19:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I just came by to give you a more personal message after the automated one above. The only source was the band's Facebook page, and I couldn't see any RS about it online other than press releases/stuff on reddit. Probably better to wait to publish the article until there is some sourcing we can use to establish notability? Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  19:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Usually verified official social media pages are reliable. Cognissonance (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but it doesn't contribute towards notability per WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. We could their verified Facebook page for facts about the album, but my concern is that we can't establish notability yet. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  20:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it notable enough now that you can move it back to mainspace? Cognissonance (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in my view I'm afraid, those look like rehashed press releases (note how they both contain exactly the same information, presented in the same order, with the same quotes from the same band member). I'd suggest just waiting until the album is released and it either charts, or it gets some proper independent coverage like reviews. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  06:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Been building it for two months now. Added independent coverage, including interviews. Someone submitted it for review today. Could you review it, since you were the one who moved it to draftspace? Cognissonance (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , he again. I just took a look - seems like you've done a lot of work on it! I'd be happy to review this, but there are quite a lot of refs there now - it would make my job easier (I am very lazy!) if you could point me at the best two-three of them. I'd be looking for something which is independent, reliable and properly secondary - not an interview, not a press release, but a proper review of the music by a recognised reviewer. If you've got a couple of refs like that, I'd be happy to accept this. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two reviews added now (Sonic Perspectives, ViaOmega). Each meets the criteria of being an "online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". I have yet to use Metal Storm, which is listed on WP:RSMUSIC. Cognissonance (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , cool - I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ those reviews swung it for me, clearly significant independent coverage. Cheers Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  05:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cognissonance (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pitfalls album.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pitfalls album.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) 02:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Tonic Trouble
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyberpunk (2020)
Somehow I missed the fact that our article about the Cyberpunk games (of which 2020 is but one) is titled Cyberpunk 2020. So yes, that was a mistake. But that’s no reason to call someone retarded, and a case could be made that there is never a good reason. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You do not own articles; please be more collaborative
Your extensive work on Pitfalls and/or creation of it does not mean you own it or get final say on everything that happens on the article. The way you spoke to Lk95 with this revert indicates you think you do, and this goes against WP:OWN. Yes, WP:CITEVAR is a thing, but this really only means references should be consistent with regard to their placement (i.e. list-defined references) and the parameters used. It does not mean you "control" the page, nor that you need to revert every change made by an editor to the article that you disagree with, or that album chart templates cannot or should not be used. In case you were unaware, album chart templates support the use of a refname parameter that allows the reference they generate to be invoked elsewhere on the article. Retaining "plainrowheaders" in the wikitable header but not making use of it is pointless, and putting ref names next to the peak the album achieved should not be done as it can (and has) messed with the sortability/order in which the values display. There's also no need for the "peak position" column to be so wide, hence why a line break is used between the words. Reverting any editors trying to make improvements to an article you have worked on or created to bring it in line with how charts are displayed across most album articles is not beneficial for it nor helping you as an editor. You can have a go at me for this if you wish, but please be a bit less controlling with how you approach editing articles. Thanks.  Ss  112   13:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:CITEVAR is about citation consistency, which you broke when you edited away my version. What's your plan for when the sources die? Are there archive parameters for that? I thanked Lk95 for his addition of the German chart, but those templates stopped being "improvements" as soon as I saw no archive parameters. Cognissonance (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have ignored all of what I just said and continued to act like you WP:OWN this article by reverting me. Just to remind you: You don't own the article, nor any article on Wikipedia no matter how much you work on them. I didn't "break" anything; it's not "breaking" literally anything to use album chart templates. You're removing sortability, which introduces WP:ACCESS problems, and you have plainrowheaders in the wikitable header for no reason with your version—scope="row"s also aid accessibility. Your version is not an improvement and is merely you continuing to think everything on the article has to be what you prefer. Stop edit warring; I'm informing an admin—the same one who tagged your little psychobabble sandbox page for deletion. There was no chart section to revert to before Lk95 introduced it, so your changes are subject to WP:BRD. I'd suggest unless you want to be blocked in future, you stop acting like you own articles and stop edit warring on them fast. Sorry to tell you, but the amount of GAs you have or whatever else you've done here is not going to stop you from being blocked.  Ss  112   23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I've tried to work collaboratively and compromise by keeping your desired list-defined references on the article while retaining scope="row"s and sortability per WP:ACCESS, and putting a line break in the peak position column as having that column be so wide is unnecessary. But I suppose when you're back online you'll revert it straight out?  Ss  112   23:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Cognissonance (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Cognissonance/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Cognissonance/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Watch Dogs 2
As someone who has contributed significantly to the Watch Dogs 2 article, which I thank you for, I kindly request your valuable input on this discussion around stylisation in the lead of the game. Kind regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Thanks again for all of your help these past few years. It was very much appreciated. Wishing you and all your loved ones a happy and healthy holiday season. And remember to take the time to do what you want to do in 2020. Over the course of human history, only a relatively minuscule amount of people will ever be able to say they lived through 2020, so make it a good one! ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pitfalls
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pitfalls 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 Lordtobi -- Lordtobi (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pitfalls
The article Pitfalls 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:Pitfalls for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lordtobi -- Lordtobi (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pitfalls
The article Pitfalls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pitfalls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lordtobi -- Lordtobi (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Tenet (film)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

DYK for Pitfalls
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Why the fuck was my hook rewritten? Cognissonance (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The hook in the prep queue said something about "inner turmoil", which is not mentioned in the article so was not compliant with WP:HOOK criterion H5. I think it's also questionable whether inner turmoil is a suitable euphemism for depression and anxiety anyway. I could have pulled it from the queue and reopened the nom, but I didn't think it was controversial to just amend the hook's last two words to match the wording of the article's text - Hooks are often copyedited in the queues. Apologies if this was more controversial for you than I thought. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You butchered it. Never using DYK again. Cognissonance (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review
That was a spur of the moment nomination while waiting for two other articles to finish reviewing. So it was nice to see that all get done within 24 hours. GamerPro64 18:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, I was looking for a short article to do and yours was perfect. Cognissonance (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

GA fail in Hollow Knight
Not sure why you immediately failed the article. Seems you don't take the process seriously, in which case, why do it at all?

The banners were not added by me, and don't make any sense. They seem to have been mere vandalism unless you can prove differently.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I will ask you to reopen the GA nomination and let someone else review it. It's a bit of an insult to just strike it down without even bothering to so much as read the page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , just chiming in to say that I think Cognissonance was right to fail the review. The tags are absolutely justified (the lede doesn't adequately summarize the article and the plot section is way too in-universe, and seems overly long as well), quite a few chunks of the Gameplay section are unsourced, the ref ideas on the talk page haven't been incorporated into the Development section, and the Reception section seems far too short for a game that received as many reviews as it did. I think it needs quite a bit of work before it's ready for GAN. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  14:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Grammar errors
You claim that there "were no grammar errors" in an edit to Cyberpunk 2077. However, this sentence is problematic:
 * "Cyberpunk 2077 is developed using the REDengine 4 game engine, with around 500 people, exceeding the number that worked on the studio's previous game, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

The problem is that it is not clear what the subject of the sentence is.
 * ''The subject in a simple English sentence [...] is the person or thing about whom the statement is made.

So what is the subject of the sentence in the Cyberpunk 2077 article? Is it Cyberpunk 2077? Is is the REDengine 4? Is it the size of the development team? Or is it the comparison between the development team of Cyberpunk 2077 and The Witcher 3? The problem is easily solved by turning the existing complex, compound sentence into two separate sentences, each with their own subject.

Unfortunately, what should be a straightforward and uncontroversial edit needs to be explained to you in detail before it can be applied to the article. And it's not the first time you have done this, either&mdash;you did it in the Tenet article, too. This looks a lot like ownership behaviour:
 * ''An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently.

That describes exactly what you are doing. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit sucks, that's why I undo it. You talk about problems in sentences, but frivolously repeat "team" and "CD Projekt", which makes the paragraph much worse. The lead has been copyedited by several people who do good work and I don't undo those edits. Cognissonance (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2077 genitals
Clearly not covered by body type. Why elaborate on almost everything that you can customize then not include genitals. Nobody will read body type and think oh hey yea genital customization is possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 03:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not supposed to. Genitals are a part of the body, which can be customised. We only add what needs to be there. Cognissonance (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

don't you think the whole point of an encyclopedia is to be through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Cognissonance (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fahrenheit (2005 video game)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fahrenheit (2005 video game) 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 ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Time
If you remember that you removed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenet_(film)&diff=956323301&oldid=956318885 "through time manipulation". I just saw the trailer, and it seems there is time inversion involved. Something that we should have asap (which is, as soon as it can be sourced). Debresser (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Cognissonance (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fahrenheit (2005 video game)
The article Fahrenheit (2005 video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fahrenheit (2005 video game) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProtoDrake -- ProtoDrake (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Cyberpunk 2077; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 23:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Tenet revert
Why did you revert this sourced edit? Debresser (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "a spy with the mysterious surroundings" makes no sense, Gizmodo does not connect "Barbara" to Elizabeth Debicki, "special operative" is too vague a description, the Tenet trailer does not describe Clémence Poésy as a "Scientist" or Martin Donovan as the "Recruter" (sic). Reverting poor IP edits does not qualify as WP:OWN. Cognissonance (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Good answer. You may continue to the next round. :) Debresser (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Cyberpunk’s creator
Are you able to edit the Cyberpunk 2077 page so that Mike Pondsmith’s name is more visible in the first paragraph? I just wanted more visibility for the creator just like the wikipedia page for the first witcher game which also mentions Andrzej Sapkowski, the creator of the witcher novels which the game is based on. LoreOfCyberpunk (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The creator is appropriately visible, there's no need to copy the Witcher page. But I'll add the introduction to the third paragraph of Development. Cognissonance (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I do appreciate it. LoreOfCyberpunk (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games Newsletter Q2 2020
03:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Tenet, KMRB, website and publisher
Hi, I came to discuss it here because it seems too small a thing to discuss in the article's talk. There's no need for consistency between all references in that regard. Accuracy is best. It is a website, but it's a company's website. The link is to the company, and since both are named the same there's no need for both to be there. For example, BBC or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (that hosts the Academy Awards) are companies, therefore they should be in, it doesn't matter that the outside link is to a website; every link is to a website. Meanwhile, Collider is a website, so it should be in, and Variety is a magazine, so it should be in. Whenever I link to the British Board of Film Classification, which is the same as the Korea Media Rating Board, I put it in the publisher, because it is a bigger endeavor than just a website. So, while putting it in is not technically wrong, the appropriate place for it is. In cases like this one, the company takes precedence over the website. It isn't just a website owned by a company, like Screen Rant is owned by Valnet, Inc.; this is the website of the company. Anyway, that's my reasoning for why is more appropriate. El Millo (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By continually using website= when citing websites, we will always be correct. I don't want to have to gauge every time whether something is an organisation or magazine elsewhere, or go back to change it if a magazine goes out of print. Game Informer is both a website and a magazine, but I only use website= if the information comes from a website. If I'm using the Game Informer magazine, I use magazine=. Cognissonance (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have to gauge every time... It's okay. I'm not asking you to do it, I'm just asking you not to revert me when I do it unless you actually think it's wrong. It's okay to use as a default, as I said, it's not technically wrong, but something else is more accurate. The major difference is between  and the rest, given it's the only one that isn't in italics. All the differences between the rest of them don't concern me as much, because it doesn't make a difference visually. Well, I'll wait for your response and change it back again if it's okay with you. El Millo (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's one citation like that, they all have to follow that logic. I don't want to have to keep doing that, because it is up to interpretation for one, and even when I don't add the sources I like to keep References consistent. When I added trans-title= to the Korean source, I added it to the Norwegian and Danish ones too. Cognissonance (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have to keep doing that Like I said, I'll do it. For example, there's a Cite web that has BBC as website, and it should be in publisher. Remember, I'm watching the article as well. El Millo (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay just don't capitalise "cite", that has been lower case for months, changing it interferes with WP:CITEVAR. Cognissonance (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. El Millo (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Cognissonance. I found your last edit to Tenet (film) a bit problematic, since 1. the edit summary "c/e + WP:CITEVAR" was misleading in view of the fact that you removed genres from the lead 2. you yourself seem to have violated WP:CITEVAR by removing the capitals from Cite web -> cite web (not to mention that the default of template names is capitalized on Wikipedia). Debresser (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * CITEVAR doesn't actually address citation template capitalization, but the edit in question reverted the previous unilateral change, restoring WP:STATUSQUO. Note also that the documentation for consistently uses the lower-cased variation; there is no technical difference between the two. Regards,  IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention the genres because it is agreed upon to have one particular genre. WP:CITEVAR is about citation style, and what has remained consistent is the lower case "cite". Stop bothering me about "problematic" edit summaries. Cognissonance (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but if you insist I stop bothering you, then my next step will be an admin forum. You should use meaningful edit summaries, but you must refrain from using misleading ones. The specific edit summary I mentioned was unacceptable, and your explanation is too. If you were enforcing a consensus regarding genres, then the edit summary should have said so clearly.
 * In general, you are positioning yourself a gatekeeper on several articles, so either you live up to that high standard, or be ready to be dragged to admin forums for not sticking to the rules and WP:OWN behavior. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is unimportant shit. Don't make me drag you to admin forums for bothering me with WP:UNIMPORTANTSHIT behavior. Cognissonance (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

access-date: The full date when the content pointed to by url was last verified to support the text in the article; do not wikilink; requires url; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the article's citations. It is not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium) at Help:Citation Style 1. If you personally dislike it, you can hide it (as shown in Help:Citation Style 1/accessdate). El Millo (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Medium gameplay.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Medium gameplay.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) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Tenet
Why do you keep removing | this commma? It clearly states in MOS:DATE that that comma should be there. --SacredDragonX (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

shameless attempt
Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of your contributions here, always straight to the point and with great care for both language and composition. I think I've tried to recruite you in past, with no success, but here goes nothing: If you find yourself bored for 5-10 minutes, feel free to take a quick look at the prose on Christopher Nolan's biography. I take no offence if you're not interested, and you don't have to reply.

All the best, Sammyjankis88 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I don't remember an attempt at being recruited, but I could take a look at the article. Just so we're on the same page, you want me to copyedit what I find to be subpar? Cognissonance (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would absolutely love that! Sammyjankis88 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good stuff mate, I admire your ability to identify fat in sentences. Thanks a bunch. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't come that far down, but I'll keep the article in mind. Can't go as deep as with Tenet since I don't know the Chris Nolan article that well. Cognissonance (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would be super. I completely understand. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)