User talk:Haleth/Archive 3

Thranduil
Thank you for restoring this page GorgonaJS (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorgonaJS: You're welcome. Hope to see you contributing more as an editor. Haleth (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics
Hi Haleth, many thanks for your apposite comments in her defence. All the same, perhaps it's tempting fate to defend one character by attracting monstrous attention to two others! Let's hope not. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Chiswick Chap, no worries, and thank you again for your tireless efforts in improving all the existing Middle-earth articles and writing up new ones. Let's see if the stick will be dropped and the horse carcass be well and truly left alone at last. Haleth (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Chiswick Chap, looks like the rotting horse carcass is still being beaten. Best to ignore, perhaps?
 * Definitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agent (The Matrix), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Taylor and Paul Goddard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Rings of Power
We have in the Rings of Power article quite the mess. Language ranges from chatty to Ye Olde Tea Shoppe, forsooth. Large chunks of repetitive primary content. Fixed one or two totally flaky uses of scholarship, but... I think the whole thing is way too long and way too primary. I'd almost assert that beyond the One Ring and Nazgul coverage (all overlap with those articles) there's almost nothing to say the subject is notable. Sources? Rewrite? Cut down? Redirect? Ideas on a postcard ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap. I have had a look at the article, which at the moment seems to have adequate secondary sourcing. I also did a quick Google Search to confirm how easy is it to locate secondary sources, and I can spot some.

As for the Rings...The One Ring is obviously an eminent topic, as it is almost portrayed as a sentient character. The nine form the backstory for the Nazgul and are covered adequately there. The Three Rings on the other hand...could conceivably be merged into the main Rings of Power article. Though I feel that if the prose for Rings of Power is to be trimmed extensively, there is no reason why the Three Rings article can’t be kept.

Furthermore, the Rings or the concept behind them have been featured in other media (and discussed within the context of said media), like the Shadow of Mordor video games. The upcoming Amazon TV series is all but confirmed to be exploring the Rings’ origin story and construction process as it happened, instead of being part of a 5 minute exposition or background lore.

So I think that a general topic about Rings of Power is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I think the best way forward, is to first trim down the parts for the Rings which do have their own articles summary style, and then decide whether we need to add or rewrite anything. The alternative of course, is merging the Three Rings into the Rings of Power. I am personally not keen about merging, but I understand if the information can be better presented within the main Rings of Power article. Hope I have been of assistance. Haleth (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Haleth (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Good thinking. I'll give it a go and then think about the status of the Three. All help appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If your primary concern is about the length of the article though, merging the Three Rings into the main Rings of Power article may be counterproductive. Trimming contents for the Rings which do have their own articles already would be the best place to start. Haleth (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly true. But it's not length that's the issue, it's quality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see on the talk page that there was a proposal not very long ago to merge the Three Rings into the Rings of Power, though you took the view that it shouldn't be since there are enough secondary sources to sustain the article. Haleth (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I listed demonstrate notability of the Three Rings; but per Talk:Three Rings people have rightly wondered about the obvious overlap between Three Rings and Rings of Power since 2007, and the matter has never been resolved. Your suggestion of trimming the Rings of Power to a proper summary of the child articles (One Ring, Three Rings, and the ringy part of Nazgûl) with a matching bit on the Seven Dwarf-Rings, will make for a much better article, and of course shorter too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just FYI. Prose for Three Rings is 7,908 chars, Rings of Power is 23,349 chars. If the Three Rings are merged into Rings of Power, according to the the recommendations of WP:SIZESPLIT it should sit comfortably below 40,000 chars, which states that length alone does not exactly justify division, although I am not sure if it gets Rings of Power any closer to GA+ status (if that is your goal) since I noticed that some reviewers dislike lengthy articles (even though prose size of 40k chars is not at all lengthy in my opinion). I think the difficulty here is that outside of The One and the Three, none of the Seven or the Nine were named or discussed individually at a reasonable length within secondary sources, not to mention primary sources since Tolkien hardly dwelled on them. Collectively though, the Rings of Power are an important concept or plot device within the Middle-earth setting and it is covered with regular frequency by both scholarly and popular sources, though perhaps not deeply. I've already done a bit of trimming, but as you are aware by now, I am not very good at simulating an attempt at pure BE prose and would absent mindedly drift back into my own writing style, which is a jumbled and confused mess of English as written and spoken in several countries. Haleth (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that if you gather three GA reviewers you'll reliably get five opinions. If we do as you say (please) the length won't be an issue; and there's definitely scope for extending the Analysis bit of Three Rings, too, with excellent sources not yet used. I agree with you that RoP is a worthy topic, indeed the project needs it to organise the rest of the Rings area, so cutting down the description to summaries is the right thing to do - it's clearly per policy, and it's also per everybody's intuition that there's currently a problem, which it should neatly fix. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

... Trimming has helped a little, but it hasn't shifted the blockage (as a plumber might say). I think the trouble is structural: basically, we have account (A) in the fictional history, account (B) in the Description, repeating the same facts; account (C) in Powers, ditto; account (D) in Concept and creation, touching on the same facts; and account (E) doing the same again. Isn't that so? Some of it needs "to boldly go", but what? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take another stab, unless you are still working on it? PS: There are a couple of errors on the diagram you came up for the article re. lords of men and Vilya. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free, I'll leave it alone. What d'you want with the diagram wording? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote "7" lords of men instead of "9". As for Vilya, I was always under the impression that Gil-galad bore it directly before it was passed to Elrond, while Cirdan was the direct recipient of Narya before passing it to Gandalf. My understanding is that Unfinished Tales contradicted it and had Gil-galad receiving both at the same time, then again it was the published version of an unused draft. Not strictly an error, but I thought it might be good to keep the details consistent. Haleth (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixing it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Not sure the Snow White connection is that well thought through by those guys ... if anything, it'd be connected with the Dwarfs as Jews --- he mentions the latter in his letters, though not linking it to Rings. One of his less good moments, really, reasons obvious enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's more to do with the association of number 7 when it comes to how many rings the dwarf lords get. He did go on record about how he felt about Disney's take on the Snow White Dwarfs, so the notion of a nod to Seven Dwarfs seems more conspicuous compared to the significance of number 7 in Judaism. Was there any published draft or behind the scenes info about why he chose to assign certain number of rings to each peoples though? Haleth (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not seen anything on that; the 1-3-7-9 thing does go with trad. numerology and number associations like 3 Wise Men, Holy Trinity etc (Vaccaro on De Planctu with its 7 stones... it seems rather far-fetched and weak to me). Basically, no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * But I agree, the avarice stereotype and lost homeland aspect does scream Jewish diaspora, for better or worse. Haleth (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * JRRT wrote in Letter 176 to Naomi Mitchison, 8 Dec 1955 "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue...." Not surprised PJ didn't follow that one up... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I know it's April the 1st, but seriously, why don't we give the article a polish and take it to GAN? I think it's very nearly ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, sure. I am happy to let you take the lead. I'll look around and see what other useful reliable sources can be added. Haleth (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm about ready, I think, unless some new angles turn up. I've added a useful source (Rawls 1984) on fairytale, that paragraph now works well; added a diagram; and rewritten the lead. Any more sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't found much relevant academic or scholarly material which aren't already covered in the article, or the ones about Three Rings or the One Ring. The popular sources tend to dwell on retelling plot summaries, or speculation about how they will be depicted in the upcoming Amazon TV series. However, I found a very interesting opinion piece published by Kaspersky which analyze the history of the Rings of Power as a...information security parable. Supply chains, botnet and C&C servers, the way the Rings are manipulated or hidden from a cybersecurity perspective...I find it quite a compelling read! Cybersecurity report from Middle-earth Haleth (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess you can add something at the end in a Legacy section or something of that kind. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

... Well, in the event it made it to GA quite sweetly. You can add it to your trophy cabinet ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's great! Thank you for looking after the article when the review came up. I've been a bit busy lately but will be doing a lot more editing again soon. Haleth (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otak-otak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brain matter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Characters of Final Fantasy XV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hipster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on your new article
One of your references is missing a publisher, can you see which one? I’m trying to get us to zero cleanup tags. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which article are you referring to. Can you at least tell me which one you've identified as having a cleanup tag/missing publisher info? Is it related to Project Square Enix? Haleth (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Final Fantasy XV downloadable content this one, it’s pretty good, just has one cleanup tag. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll proof read it again. Must have missed one due to the voluminous amount of references. Haleth (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have proof-read the article thoroughly, and I can't actually find a citation that is missing publisher information. Furthermore, the only cleanup tag the article has ever had was left by you on April 6 in the article's talk page, which was a request for box art or logo, not a tag for missing reference info. Haleth (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

question
Hi, I know the Resident evil village isn't out yet, but news/sources keep mentioning or talking about Lady Dimitrescu. Do you think the character is notable?. 180.194.141.59 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Short answer, yes. In fact, an article for the character was previously created, but redirected by a longtime editor who insists that it was too soon since Village has yet to be released. You may discuss this further on the article's talk page. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Kalibak
You contributed to Kalibak and I believe you are a member of Wikiproject Comics so I welcome your thoughts or improvements on the AFD if you feel like it. Jhenderson 7 7 7  03:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am technically not a formal member of Wikiproject Comics, and I don't recall editing the Kalibak page before. Anyway, probably not a good idea for you to publicly ask me to participate in a specific AfD topic, as you may be accused of WP:CANVASSING and anything I say may be discounted. Haleth (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Come on. You know this is not a canvass. I am well aware of the issue. You edited the article before and I recognized you as an common member. How would I know if you vote keep or delete. No need to assume bad faith. Jhenderson  7 7 7  11:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just take my word for it that I saw your revision on the article. Also I said if you feel like it. I will take that as a no and go on my own way. What grinds my gears though is that you know that I know what canvassing is. And you choose to be preachy to your one time colleague about it and naturally assume that I assume that you would vote keep. Also note that I asked if you can improve the article instead of voting at all.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not sure why you are reacting badly to what I said. I am not assuming bad faith or alleging that you are putting me on the spot. I am simply saying that since you specifically left a message for me to participate in this particular AfD, certain editors (not naming names) may cry foul and claim that I was "canvassed" to show up, even though I do occasionally go to the AfD's out of my own volition; suspect some people are aware that I rarely vote delete unless the topic is blatantly promotional or hoax. I am not actually saying you "canvassed" me, I am saying any participation following your message may be scrutinized as "canvassing" by people who are addicted to drama of discrediting other editors and the power trip of being able to dictate content on Wikipedia to their personal standards, and it is disheartening that people who frequently participate in AfD's or stealthily leave PROD's these days tend to be of this personality type. And yes, I do understand you've had a gutful of dealing with this kind of drama.


 * I honestly do not recall contributing to the article (if I ever did it was probably old and very minor in nature), and I doubt I will vote in the AfD itself unless I have something new to bring to the table. If it helps, I can go and have a look out for sources specifically about Kalibak and add them directly to the article (or the Afd) if found. Haleth (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Canvassing is a serious issue. So I did kind of get a little upset. But I am ok for the most part. But yes I do want more sources if you can find any. I am just worried that the only thing is there are listicles. They won’t count that. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Actual evidence of widespread canvassing to game Wikipedia consensus procedures (you might recognize a name or two in the link) and allegations of canvassing or votestacking aren't the same thing. As you are aware, anyone who reports an infraction to the ANI boards may find the process counterproductive anyway, so normally objectors will simply agitate for the AfD closer to disregard votes from certain editors; but ultimately, I just want to minimize drama and focus on writing about other topics which are viable enough due to available coverage. As per the advice of many other experienced editors, the best approach to refute such opinions, or to even overturn a prior consensus that is weakly or inappropriately established, still comes to proving that viable sourcing exists; some contemptuous editors will still kick up a fuss about redirected articles being rewritten and brought back into mainspace, but nothing they can do when the solid sourcing speaks for itself and when reasonable editors participate in the process.


 * With Kalibak, a preliminary check I've done so far doesn't look good. Even a quick search on Comicbook.com and CBR or Screen Rant (not a single search result returned) hasn't really turned out anything worthwhile, and these are situationally reliable sites which tend to go into minutiae detail about fictional characters and are thus despised by some deletionist-minded editors. Haleth (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Amazing to me that multi-media classic character and still ongoing character Kalibak gets very little coverage. Yet minor new characters (that you or even I helped make) articles of does. Yes you (and/or I) do good job of these characters. Adding a lot of info to help look like it’s significant. But all this does prove to me that GNG gets quite subjective. All it is is relying on recentism and such to help build article info. I will dodge responding your info for canvassing.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Recentism is certainly an issue, and that will always be the issue of inherent systemic bias in the internet age; as Kalibak is a character from the 1970's, so I would imagine that there might be print sources about the character which ultimately never made it to the internet, or at least not easy to detect with simple google searches. It's also the case that sometimes, fictional characters of a certain nature (for e.g. Tolkien studies, characters from diverse minority backgrounds) are the subject of extensive scholarly or academic which is disproportionate to the level of prominence in the media works they actually appear in, and that is where we find the "real world notability" that some editors demand of. Anyway, I agree that GNG can be flawed and subjective when it comes to assess a fictional topic's cultural relevance, but sticking with it as the default Wikipedia's notability guideline system is the current prevalent consensus among most Wikipedia editors, so I have to work within that framework. I certainly prefer it over the nebulous concept of "real world notability".


 * That said, it could also be that Kalibak as a character simply has not resonated with critics or other writers in the entertainment industry as much as the other New Gods, or that he is always discussed within the context of being Darkseid's son, not unlike Goten as Goku's son or Trunks' best friend, because no DC comics writer has done a compelling take of the character so far or feature him front and center of any recent major storyline. Haleth (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You summarized my thoughts in an really detailed matter. So I will leave it at that. Lol Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Valinor
Hi, wondering what to do about Valinor. The Analysis section is fairly comprehensive and based on RS, the Geography and History long, intelligible only to Tolkiendils, and sparsely-cited. Have taken Gimli's axe to some of it (a slight improvement) but there's lots left. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't think notability is in issue here at first glance, so it's just a matter of reorganizing article content, rewriting in plainer prose, and improving its overall quality. I'll have a look and think about it, though I'm a bit busy with some real life stuff and some of my personal projects on Wikipedia at the moment so I hope you are ok with me taking my time on this. Haleth (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. I'll scratch my head about the coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Exchange reviews?
Long time no see. I've just nominated Judgment (video game) to GA and noted in the project you did the same with 343 Guilty Spark. Are you interested in exchanging reviews? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be honoured to...except I have not yet played Judgement and I know very little about it, though I intend to get into it in the near future once I've cleared my current backlog aka pile of shame with the free time I've had from the pandemic. Anyway, I don't mind doing it if no one has taken up on reviewing it thus far. Haleth (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you don't wanna review it due to spoilers I get it. That's basically how I created Yagami's article too Tintor2 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Wait, due to spoilers, how about instead of Judgment, what do you think of reviewing Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc? It was recently copyedited so I think it has potential.Tintor2 (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't mind doing Judgment honestly. I don't have an issue reviewing everything else. But because I don't know anything about the game's story, I wouldn't know whether the current plot summary contains any and all relevant elements that should belong there. Is it relatively unchanged from the copy edit exercise carried out on September 24, 2020 according to the talk page, and most importantly, is it under 700 words? Haleth (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The thing with Judgment is that the narrative contains way too many characters including Yagami's former mates from his lawyer days, deliquents who are related to the mole case, etc. Remember it was written by the same guys behind Yakuza so not every character stand out. I recently tried trimming most parts of the plot that might seem unnecessary. The current plot section has around 500 words. Tintor2 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup, definitely sounds like a Yakuza game with the plot and characters. Can I think about it and get back to you later? Haleth (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the nomination and asked for a copyedit as I started adding extra material from the remaster. Now I'm working on the first Danganronpa due to its recent copyedit Tintor2 (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * While the Danganronpa article became GA today, I will not nominate another article until Judgment (video game) is copyedited since the remasters' sudden release made me write new information about how it was received. Feel free to ask me to review any article though since I have more freetime as a result.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Congratulations for getting Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc up to GA. Are you still interested in reviewing 343 Guilty Spark? Haleth (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Androids 13, 14, and 15
Hi there. I started a discussion regarding these characters at Talk:Red Ribbon Army. Since you are the main contributor to the RRA article, your opinion is more than needed there. Thank you. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  19:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, they are mentioned in the "Other media" section, as well as Android 21. I think it is better that way.-- LoЯd  ۞pεth  19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I haven't really looked into whether Android 13 have been discussed further in video game media since I am unfamiliar with the vast majority of DB video games. Any scope for expansion of prose will probably come from those since sources are hard to come by for Dragon Ball anime films that don't star Broly or aren't from the 2010's. As for Android 21, it seems that she is as ambiguously canon as the reworked version of Broly at this point in time, but any meaningful coverage about the character should go to the standalone article in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 343 Guilty Spark
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 343 Guilty Spark 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 Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Tyler Ronan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyler Ronan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tyler Ronan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 343 Guilty Spark
The article 343 Guilty Spark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:343 Guilty Spark for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass Effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hard light.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass Effect Galaxy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Redirects
Why have you changed the categories of Brigid Tenenbaum (Bioshock character) and the others? They are now all wrong. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me how exactly was it "wrong"? All of the redirects were always meant to be to Characters of the BioShock series if you look at the page histories, up until August 2018 when a bot inexplicably and indiscriminately redirected every Bioshock character without a standalone article from their long-standing sections on that page to the the main Bioshock (series) page. If you click on Brigid Tenenbaum (Bioshock character) now, it now takes you directly to the relevant section where the character is actually covered in detail, as opposed to a passing mention on the series article. And for the record, and in case I misunderstood what you were trying to say, redirected pages are not supposed to contain categories according to many other experienced editors. Haleth (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll clean it up for you. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Aya Brea
 * added a link pointing to Parasite Eve
 * Ghoul (Fallout)
 * added a link pointing to I Am Legend

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Intervention
Thank you for standing up for me, and indeed for the project, its processes, and everyone who uses the project. Yes, the behaviour is basically intolerable. What would I need to say if reporting it, and what are the risks? The guy is extremely argumentative and will surely go down fighting, so if we're to go that way, I think we'd best think out the scenario. Best would be a permanent topic ban. Worst might be if he's partially blocked or only for a short time. I wonder if a chat with an admin might not be best? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to step away from the GAN/GAR for now and ignore his ranting (as frustrating as it is), while letting the other members of the community chime in and join the growing consensus of disapproval. I'd wait for Hog Farm to finish sorting him out since he has made time out to criticize the pattern of disruptive behavior, though he indicated that he will not use his admin tools (yet). I do understand Hog Farm's position because he is being baited (though someone's personal essay being cited as opposed to the actual guideline shows you how much he really knows), and likely one of his earliest outings facing down a truly toxic personality, but I really couldn't think of any other active admin who takes an interest in Tolkien topics and I was hoping it would not escalate further to the drama boards (ANI) once he got the warning he deserved. It seems like his mentality is still stuck in the mid-2000's period of Wikipedia, when things were less structured and an outspoken self-proclaimed expert was able to fool and sway the crowd as long as he was loud enough when doubling down on the trumpeting of his credentials. If he still doesn't temper his behaviour and back off, then I suppose it's unfortunate that you will have to take it to ANI. Just state plainly his exact allegations about you and the fact that he has repeatedly cast aspersions and showed WP:IDHT behavior when other editors expressed their disapproval, with one member even openly suggesting a topic ban or dragging him to ANI without being prompted. The thing is I doubt anyone on ANI would support or endorse his behaviour once they've read his rants, and if he tries to unilaterally remove the GA tag he'd only be digging a deeper hole for himself as a vandal. It's no longer as easy to get away with the aspersions and combativeness as the community is now much more aware of issues like anti-harassment and incivility; even a number of longtime high profile admins (i.e. WP:FRAM were not immune to repercussions for their behavior when it is retroactively assessed as problematic. Haleth (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed reply. I think it may be best to wait, as he's digging a hole for himself at GAR (if not also at GAN), and it is actually possible he'll reveal some of his knowledge and make constructive suggestions at the GAN (he's very well read in Tolkien, according to the scholar David Bratman) if I just listen patiently.


 * Bratman actually wrote something highly relevant:

"Understanding Middle-earth: Essays on Tolkien’s Middle-earth by Michael Martinez (Poughkeepsie, N.Y.: ViviSphere, 2003) is a somewhat rewritten and edited collection of Web-published essays by a popular online writer on Tolkien. These explore many general and specific Tolkienian topics, from explorations of Tolkien’s lesser-known sources to whimsical speculations and outright guesswork. Unlike Perry, Martinez uses posthumously published material extensively. His most characteristic posture is a forceful intervention in debates over the sub-creation, especially in testing the limits of reliable sub-creational knowledge. He is particularly interested in the questions of to what extent and in what circumstances the posthumous works may be used to supplement the canon of sub-creational facts established in the works Tolkien published. Though his interpretations are sometimes questionable, Martinez’s facts are generally reliable. He writes informally and argumentatively but (in small doses) readably in adequate prose, without pretensions to formal scholarship."

- David Bratman


 * Curious, no? So it seems to me we've unfortunately caught the "forceful intervention in debates" bit; I'd really like to hear him on facts and interpretations (after all, they can be reliably cited...) if it proves to be possible to calm him down a bit. And it's very likely that Hog Farm or others will intervene anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that a self-styled expert's casually expressed opinions through his Wikipedia postings, even if he is a published author, can be relied upon to any useful degree for the purpose of building an article. For me, the material you've quoted about Mr. Martinez really only makes the case for a BLP to be written about him as a scholar of perhaps uneven credentials due to the mild level of notoriety he generated within respectable Tolkien scholar circles, since other experts have cast doubt on his ability to provide any meaningful commentary or interpretations other then the facts he gleaned on his own from the primary sources, which in my mind would classify his work as situationally reliable at best. In any event, it is seems to me that instead of edit warring with you or other members of the Wikiproject like so many other ill-mannered editors who come and go, another approach is being used to force content change of a certain POV on the articles. Haleth (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that numerous pairs of eyes are now on the situation so I doubt that any degree of forcing will be accepted, especially not if it's an attempt to insert his own viewpoint or revert the article to some undeveloped state. As for writing an article, that would be a curious development too. I guess that notability could be established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 5
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Deliver Us the Moon
 * added a link pointing to Interstellar
 * Maggie Baird
 * added a link pointing to Asari
 * Universe of Mass Effect
 * added a link pointing to Hive mind

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Essay
You don't have to be mad to work here, but... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting read. Thanks for sharing! PS: You might want to create a convenient shortcut that redirects to the essay. Haleth (talk) 12:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Exchange reviews?
Just noticed you nominated Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar some months ago and still didn't get the review. Wanna exchange reviews with the one I recently nominated? Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair. Anyway, happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tintor2. Yes, I am happy to do that. I just had a quick skim read of the article, and I have already identified a few issues. I will start a proper review later today. Haleth (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar 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 Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doomguy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethesda.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar
The article Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dragon Age: Origins – Return to Ostagar for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Revert of my pokemon redirects
Hi Haleth, I understand that you disagree with my redirects of the Pokemon character articles. Do you believe that these characters are notable? My reason for doing a redirect is following the WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT method in the guideline. I do not believe there is anything notable to merge from them. If you insist, I can create AfDs for these articles. Natg 19 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have undone your redirects, and you are now discussing it with me per WP:BRD. There is nothing wrong with WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT, but just like the WP:PROD process, other editors are well within their rights to disagree to your bold edit. The reason is not due to my editorial opinion on whether they are in fact objectively notable, but because your edits lack consensus, as a cursory look at the articles suggest that they are all properly sourced, which means it's verifiable and thus comply with the WP:V policy. Feel free to start AfD's for them since you feel strongly about it and let the community decide, though you really should present your argument based on whether they comply with WP:GNG, that is whether they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as "real world notability" is not a ground for deletion per Wikipedia's deletion policy. But if a merge or redirect is really what you are after, I suggest that you start a merge proposal at the parent list articles as AfD's are meant for articles which you believe have insurmountable issues that can't be fixed with better sourcing, because presently written article content is not necessarily an indicator for notability. Haleth (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Isaac Clarke
Hello, thanks for your recent edits in the "Isaac Clarke" page, but because it was just a redirect which was created by another user, it now considers as a page created by that user (in "Page information" and "XTools: dynamically show statistics about a page's history under the page heading"), so I recommend that you take it to WP:AFC to release it under your credit, regards. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, but that doesn't bother me. I am not claiming any credit for its contents, as I do not own it. In any event, XTools will identify my account as the primary author of the article, should that information ever be necessary. Haleth (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isaac Clarke, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alien and Spaceship.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Akudama Drive
I've been expanding the article Akudama Drive, a series created by the same guy behinds Danganronpa. Although it only lasted 12 episodes, I'm surprised with the amount of commentary given to the main character, Swindler/Ordinary Citizen (yeah they kinda gave her a nickname like the movie Reservoir Dogs). Do you think there is enough sources to create an article for her or not? Happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Tintor2. You mean, based on the sources you have already presented on the article, or any potential sources floating around which have yet to be cited? I did a cursory search for "Swindler" and "Ordinary Citizen" and found nothing so far, probably due to the generic names which returned false positive searches Searching through kanji wasn't of much help either as I got an overwhelming amount of false positive searches. Which ones are your sources which contain the commentary you were referring to? Are there at least two substantial sources which are specifically devoted to the character? Haleth (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Both Biggest In Japan and Anime Feminist made articles centered around her for how she stands out within the cast.Tintor2 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Biggest in Japan piece looks good, though it could be longer. The article from Anime Feminist is interesting and reasonably in-depth. The main problem I see here is that the article about Swindler appears to be written by an anonymous person, so that definitely falls within the definition of user-generated content...but if we can determine that the website's editorial team serves as an assurance of quality and reliability for articles such as these, that should address the issue. Besides their staff writers, they operate on a contributor and submissions system, though contributors do get paid, and they don't necessarily accept every submission they receive...so that could either be interpreted as a form of editorial oversight, or as a self-published platform where we look at the contributor's own credentials to determine reliability. The last time I used an article from them (for Red Ribbon Army), it's a contribution by Aimee Hart, who is a known video game journalist. I think such an article could have potential if more sources could be found, but due to the commercial disappointment of the series, I don't expect the character to be widely discussed among the more mainstream anime/manga sites outside of some niche but reliable sources. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

National dish
Your "edit-war" is not substantive and will therefore not hide the fact that you have no idea about the matter. [https://www.severint.net/2018/10/03/was-ist-das-deutsche-nationalgericht/ „On the other hand, many dishes that are eaten by the majority of the population are not part of German national cuisine, at least not yet. This applies, for example, to kebab, pizza and, strictly speaking, even Wiener schnitzel.“] I will correct the article asap. —2003:C6:BF4F:B100:5D76:F813:AD28:C2D1 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you're going to cite a source to support your point, make sure it doesn't: 1) contradict your claim that doner kebab is not close to being a contender for Germany's national dish (the results claim that it comes at a not-too-shabby second place); 2) isn't a self-published WP:USERG or potentially unreliable source, which this Twitter-run poll result with a paltry sample size of 300 respondents most definitely is; 3) miss the whole point of the article, which is a non-definitive list of suggested national dishes which are backed by reliable sources, and this Das Blogmagazin being run on a Wordpress blog certainly doesn't cut it. Haleth (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * i know the wikipedia rules well enough, thank you. the article, however, gets to the point. national dishes are traditionally anchored in their country. fast food cannot simply become a national dish just because it has already been eaten by the majority of the population. whether doner kebab is "close" to being a national dish is irrelevant. it is not. maybe you want to present your point of view in terms of content instead of form? —2003:C6:BF28:5B00:25E0:C503:2ED9:85BA (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not interested in your original research or your "unique" interpretation of secondary sources which draws an inference that the cited source did not actually say; the source you attributed did not even specifically refute the notion that doner kebab is a national dish of Germany, in fact the source even undermines your argument and supports the inclusion of doner kebab as an entry on an article which contains a list of dishes that could be credibly claimed as a country's national dish, if not officially designated as such. If you do truly know Wikipedia etiquette and rules as you claimed, then you know that per WP:BRD, you are supposed to go to the article's talk page to seek consensus for your attempt to remove a verified claim and the reliable source that supports it, especially since another editor besides myself had also reverted your bold edits. Take it there, and don't write on my talk page again. Haleth (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pokémon articles
A lot of Pokémon articles are woefully outdated and behind on quality standards, so I was wondering if you had any interest in helping culling low-quality sources and adding better sources to demonstrate notability. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 05:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Abryn, outside of a month long stint playing Pokemon Go back in 2016, I don't follow any of the games or media so the Pokemon topics on Wikipedia aren't really my areas of interest and most of the Pokemon species would draw a blank with me. I am aware however, that a number of them have had dedicated coverage outside of games media and several have been used as mascots for many avenues unrelated to gaming or anime, so I'll see what I can do and keep an eye out for them when searching for quality sources. I can definitely help with copy editing and improving prose if article content quality is an issue or concern. Haleth (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would certainly be poggers, thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Dead Space media
Since you seem to be interested in the Dead Space series, I thought you'd like an update. As you may know, I've expanded and sourced the media article, and also created an article for the graphic novel Dead Space: Liberation (I tried my best to find anything on Salvage, but there's too little solid info as of yet, might happen in the future). I've also expanded the article for Dead Space: Martyr, and by a miracle managed to get a reception section of sorts. If it's true about the reboot, and the Dead Space is having a comeback, maybe more will happen. Who knows. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi ProtoDrake, thank you for keeping me in the loop. Just a comment though...most of the "List of xxx media" articles I've read, including some FL class ones like the ones for Halo and Mass Effect, only has prose in the first few paragraphs. I feel like the paragraph-length prose in the video game and other media sections would better suit the franchise overview article. I highly doubt any new coverage about Salvage will turn up in the near future, unless a site like Multiversity Comics do a retrospective review like what they recently did with Mass Effect and Dragon Age comics media. Speaking of the rumored comeback, what's your take on the addition of an entry within the franchise article before the EA Play live event where the rumor is said to be substantiated or otherwise (I didn't add it in)? It feels like an instance of Wikipedia as a crystal ball to me. 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the media section, it's one of my first times doing something on that scale, and it seemed such a complex mess of stuff that paragraph text seemed appropriate at the time, but they'd be equally or better placed in the main article. I agree, putting mention of a reboot using only rumours is premature, and I'm surprised it was there. But then the whole franchise article needs a top-down rewrite. I've got an odd relationship with the series. I enjoyed the first game's storyline and whole development cycle, the spin-offs seemed interesting enough to warrant attention, and the other media was an interesting challenge. But the series/universe as a whole, especially the second and third entries, just don't click with me that much, so I just left sources on the talk page and focused on the less mainstream (aka more interesting) elements. I'm working on the projects of Tokyo RPG Factory at the moment, and Martyr was something that happened quickly almost by accident, so my work on Dead Space will be lulling for a time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten substantial portions of the Dead Space franchise page, but I still need to do more research as the developmental section is lacking. That said, I am looking forward to next week's EA event and see whether the IP is in fact being revived. It does appear to me that for an IP that has never been particularly successful commercially (according to EA), it has a surprising amount of media developed in a very short time and amassed something of a cult following. Thanks for finding those sources and fleshing out the Martyr article. I'll see what I can do with copy editing. Haleth (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment per importance (video games)
Hi Haleth. I appreciate the energy but many of your reassessment per importance in matter of video games and video games related articles don't look good. "Importance" is assessed with certain criteria and the importance of these articles has been already decided. Except if not subject to change in the video game landscape (a video game released 10 years ago, now considered a very important game changing classic) there is no ground for changing their importance for the project. Take a careful look at the criteria. For example, nor Fallout 3 nor Mass Effect are nearly enough to be objectively considered high importance video games. But the first Fallout game does. Of course, in this process personal feeling must be put aside.

I will have to review most of your edits in this respect. For the moment I suggest you to pause your reassessments. Lone Internaut (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Lone Internaut, first of all, I understand your concern with regards to the volume of assessments I made. That said, your suggestion that I did not assess the importance of said articles with regard to the relevant assessment criteria and that my assessments were based on my personal feelings, are noted but not accepted because I did kept referring back to it with each article. With regards to the specific examples you brought up, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect, both games came out well over a decade ago, 2008 and 2007 respectively...which is consistent with your notion that a passage of 10 years would be an important milestone. To understand where I am coming from, I invite you to peruse the contents of List of video games considered the best. Both games are entries, along with the original Fallout, in the tightly curated list. I would say it is very reasonable to presume that a video game that is being considered by at least 6 distinct sources as among the "best/greatest of all time" would have a "lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself".


 * As for your opinion that they are not "nearly enough to be objectively considered high importance video games", you have not actually articulated any examples to support your argument. I would argue that all entries on that list should be marked or re-assessed as of high importance, if not already assessed as such. I would not be surprised if other editors disagree with my edits, because each individual's interpretation of a set of guidelines will always have some element of subjectivity. So in that case, let's have a discussion. Haleth (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the "10 years milestone" necessary, it was just an example. What I consider is not relevant anyway, the project acknowledges that with most of games, time is just needed to measure their lasting impact. Nor Fallout 3 nor Mass Effect (and this is just an example) rewrote or impacted heavily on their genres. They are considered great games (Fallout 3 is my favourite action RPG, to be honest, so I say this really without interest and bias) but Fallout 3 did not impact its genre as Fallout 1 did, a high-importance game. And that's pretty clear and why it was originally listed as a "mid-importance" video game. The List of video games considered the best is a good article to read to, but your mistake is taking it as a guideline. Not all games considered the best are automatically high importance video games (I used to think that too, now no more). Many of your reassessments on video games characters are also debatable: I highly doubt Overwatch characters (like Soldier: 76 or Winston) are important enough to make them "mid", except Tracer. Again, I think you are misinterpreting the criteria. Both guidelines and criteria are less interpretable than you seem to think of. I actually did a similar mistake few years ago and got scolded a bit for it.


 * And anyway if you really want to keep this reassessment thing going on, on such large scale and basing it on the list, well you should at least ask for consent to the community. The thing cannot end to one or two users. As you began this cycle of reassessments, I would leave the pleasure and responsibility to open a Project-wide multi users discussion, to you. Lone Internaut (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you still haven't made a compelling argument, based on an analysis of the sourcing available on each relevant article, that my reassessments are objectively way off mark from the assessment criteria...other then that you just don't like or agree with what I am doing, your threat to hound my edits and "review" them because you don't agree with my grading, and your refusal to WP:AGF from the start when you just assumed right away that I ignored the assessment criteria. The fact that you also mentioned being scolded as the reason why you are confronting me about my activities also gave me the impression that you are psychologically projecting your grievances on me, as opposed to getting me to empathize with your point of view. Other experienced editors may feel free to revert me and engage me in WP:BRD if they disagree with my re-assessments, but you are the only one challenging me so far, and I see that in one instance, you promptly reverted yourself, which meant that what I did was not as off base as you are suggesting here. Something for you to consider: what justification do you have, based on the extent of sourcing on Doomguy's page, that makes you think the character has become a cultural icon outside of the series beyond a dedicated fan following, other then your own personal opinion? I can't find anything substantial on that article which asserts his importance outside of the series, other then the developers' constant reinforcement that the blank slate character is always meant to represent the player and the odd association with an Animal Crossing character by video game fandom...but I am not going to revert your reassessment.


 * My comments on the content you are disputing. Besides appearing on numerous best of lists, Fallout 3 revitalized the Fallout franchise with its critical acclaim and made it commercially viable again after the franchise experienced a series of commercial flops since Fallout 2 and Interplay's financial woes. And I am someone who stopped playing it after an hour years ago and never looked back. The first Mass Effect is the same, it started an important video game franchise for EA, innovated the dialogue wheel and helped popularized the use of cinematic conversations in video games among other things, and I was surprised to find that elements of it became a regular topic of discussion in social sciences academic discourse for years. I did not rate either of them as "top" importance, which would definitely be out of line with the criteria as no single franchise or game is to be considered that important according to the guidelines. As far as fictional characters are concerned, the criteria quite clearly states that "high" means the character has become a cultural icon outside of the series, "mid" simply refers to the substantial following the character has attained or their well known role in a long running successful franchise, and all of these would have been verified by the extent sourcing. Tracer is arguably a cultural icon by now due to Overwatch's rapid explosion in popularity and her role as its mascot, whereas Winston and Soldier: 76 are highly popular/recognizable and considered culturally relevant to the series per the sources on their pages (i.e. PC Gamer).


 * This discussion is now over. Changing the grade of importance on an article does not require community consensus. What does require community participation, would be assessments of FA nominations, community reassessments of GA, or making changes to Wikipedia's list of vital articles. Your backtracking on the notion that your objection to my edits has nothing to do with your personal views is disingenuous and self-contradictory, and you are in no position to speak for the community. Take the advice on this essay, and I would request that you don't write on my talk page ever again. Haleth (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD nom obligation
Just to clarify re: Correct, AfD nominators are not obligated to do a WP:BEFORE—this isn't true: AfD nominators are indeed the only ones who can "do a BEFORE" because they are the ones expected to find alternatives before bringing the article to AfD. They are not, however, required to do a source-by-source analysis as you had implied in calling the nom "malformed". That word has a very specific meaning—that there is something about the nomination that makes it impossible to continue, like a contradiction in terms or wrong venue or improper procedure, etc., and this had none of that. czar 20:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Another editor insists here, correctly or otherwise, that the onus is always on people responding to AfD to essentially find evidence on whether it is notable or otherwise. I also recall other editors who argue against keeping an article in previous AfD claim that not doing a WP:BEFORE does not fail the nomination, but not the actual discussions themselves. I don't agree with what they say, as WP:ATD is policy and nominations that are overly or exclusively focused on manual of style editorial issues is improper use of the AfD process in my opinion. That said, I interpret the prevalence of that line of thinking that to mean that there is enough editors who regularly participate in AfD's that believe WP:BEFORE is not a obligation to an AFD, so it may not be objectively true that nominator must find alternatives before bringing the article to AfD, regardless of the criticism they may expect to receive. Haleth (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legion (Mass Effect)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Legion (Mass Effect) 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 Electroguv -- Electroguv (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legion (Mass Effect)
The article Legion (Mass Effect) 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:Legion (Mass Effect) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Electroguv -- Electroguv (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms characters
Hey there, thanks for putting some work into Catti-brie. :) Do you have anything that could help her old friend Draft:Bruenor Battlehammer get back into article space? BOZ (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * nothing very substantial I could find at the moment. I did see this, but I'd like to see the outcome of the discussion here before I would consider citing it to demonstrate notability. And even then imho, depending on who you get as a reviewer at AfC and if they have particular views about standalone Wikipedia articles on fictional topics, the draft may get rejected anyway. Haleth (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legion (Mass Effect), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hive mind.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legion (Mass Effect)
The article Legion (Mass Effect) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Legion (Mass Effect) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Electroguv -- Electroguv (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheetah
With all respect, having multiple incarnations doesn't mean that each incarnation needs to have an image, and certainly not with an image whose rationale merely says that it's identifying the subject, which is untrue. Merely being a different design is not, in and of itself, an argument to include a visual depiction of it. If it was, that would justify each incarnation of Batman being included. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * But your assertion that it is untrue that the image identifies the specific subject in question is incorrect, there are indeed four separate iterations who use the name Cheetah as their identities and aren't merely different designs, including a male iteration. Unlike many of the individual Green Lanterns and Flashes, none of them or their derivative versions in other media have a standalone article and all share one article space. Your arbitrary decision to only retain the image for the Priscila Rich Cheetah does not make sense to me because Rich is on an equal footing compared to the second or fourth iterations as a legacy character. Note that I did not re-add a second image of the Barbara Minerva Cheetah as well as the portrayals of the character in other media due to fair user concerns. And speaking of Batman, there are numerous images depicting multiple "incarnations" of the Bruce Wayne Batman, including other media, on the page itself.


 * If you are still unconvinced and adamant about getting the images removed, you could start a discussion on the character's talk page to seek consensus. But I think a better approach would be to discuss the issue on the talk page of WikiProject Comics, seeing as how the liberal use of images with fair-use rationale for multiple versions or iterations of a character identity is widespread throughout innumerable comic character articles. Haleth (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laksa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

accidental undo
Sorry, misclicked and accidentally undid you on Talk:Corrin (Fire Emblem). You can ignore the automated notice as it's already restored. Meters (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thank you for following up. Haleth (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Servbot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lobby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Marvel PRODs
Thanks for working on Krakoa. Another user has added several PRODs to other X-Men related characters, and I redirected Mondo and Joseph yesterday (both were somewhat important at one point but I'm not sure that they can be sourced adequately enough at this time). I expect to do the same with Sugar Man today and Hemingway (comics) later this week, but I have to figure that Lilandra Neramani has more potential like Krakoa so I am likely to just remove that PROD later today and see what happens. BOZ (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BOZ, I deprodded Lilandra myself. A quick search already turn up quite a few light entertainment sources, and I haven't looked into the really serious sources yet. It just looks seems an abuse of PROD to me, since it should only be used when no controversy is expected over the deletion of the topic (i.e. if something is an actual made up hoax). A lot of it could simply be bold redirects given the terrible sourcing, otherwise AfD is the way to go if notability is a concern. Haleth (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And, Lilandra goes predictably to AFD. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I already saw it. I'm not sure if it is a good idea for you to notify me about it though, since AfD's are such a contentious area. Haleth (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you would be interested in such things, but I just started User:BOZ/DnD deletions today and plan to spend a month or so on that, and I will then move on to starting one for comics characters. :) You never know what can be rescued after the fact. On the D&D front, I will probably be moving Draft:Yuan-ti, Draft:Bruenor Battlehammer, and Draft:Rudolph van Richten back to redirects in the near future as I could not find enough to get them past AFC. :( BOZ (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi BOZ. At the moment my interest is in video game topics, and I am no longer actively interested in D&D stuff. But I don't mind looking into that topic area every now and then to see if there's anything viable that have cropped up, like you said. I have to say though, D&D appears to be one topic area that is sorely lacking in reliable and independent sources. Haleth (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Selphie Tilmitt
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Selphie Tilmitt 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Selphie Tilmitt
The article Selphie Tilmitt 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:Selphie Tilmitt for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Selphie Tilmitt
The article Selphie Tilmitt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Selphie Tilmitt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I think I owe you an apology for a comment I made about you here, calling you irresponsible. It was quite a while ago, but I remembered just about now, and I figure late is better than never. Avilich (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Avilich. I didn't think much of it after the fact so this is unexpected, but not unwelcome. Thank you for reaching out to me and I appreciate your conciliatory effort. 10:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Princess Farah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reza Pahlavi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senua (Hellblade), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facial recognition.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Haleth, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AHaleth added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Breast physics for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Breast physics, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Breast physics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Playing History 2 - Slave Trade
Calling that a slave narrative is really tone-deaf. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , would you kindly explain how I am "tone-deaf" instead of flinging a contextless accusation and reverting my edits without discussion? Haleth (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You confused a video game with a slave narrative. That's fucked up. My kids know better. A narrative is a story, and a slave narrative is a story told by enslaved people. Look it up. And one of the ones you linked, this one, turns the slave trade into a game. You might could actually look at the game, and hit Ctrl+F and search for "tone deaf". It's for the same reason that I removed your tasteless additions from the template. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your needlessly aggressive tone, pointless use of swear words and refusal to act in good faith aside, I should point out that the template contains multiple entries, many of them works of fiction, which are published from the 20th century onwards (long after the slave trade itself has been abolished in the United States) and were authored or produced by people who are not themselves black slaves or their descendants. Are you intending to remove them too? If you want to set up a strict inclusion criteria (only works written by slaves or former slaves themselves) on what should be included in the template box, that's fine, but what you are really doing right now, is showing me you have ownership issues over the template box, and you are having a (public) bad faith outburst at me over an inconsequential addition or subtraction of data from an infobox when we could have had a civil discussion where you could simply express your disapproval of the edits. Haleth (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disapprove of your edits, which I consider much worse than "tone deaf"; they make a mockery out of the enslavement, rape, and continued oppression of people of African American descent. Better? And your computer games are not "fictionalized slave narratives" or anything like that--they're computer games. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "make a mockery out of the enslavement, rape, and continued oppression of people of African American descent." No, that is not what I am doing, and they are certainly not my computer games. You clearly have ownership issues, you ignored the points I made about the logic gap of other fictional works by people who were never slaves being present on the template box, and you don't like the notion that video game may be considered to be another storytelling medium like film and literature. That's fine though, you are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. You taking out your frustrations on random strangers over an inconsequential issue says a lot more about you then me though. If you have nothing else constructive to say in response other then flinging more inappropriate emotional outbursts my way, then I want no further interaction with you and I'd ask that you don't write on my talk page ever again. Haleth (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Dude. Whatever you do, never attack other editors. Wikipedia is not the place for these type of informal comments.Tintor2 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 17th British Academy Games Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asterius.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks. Thank you. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 08:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, it looks like nobody told you about the above discussion. S±orry about that. I saw that someone warned the other participant and assumed that you had been notified as well. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for notifying me about the ANI thread. I've read the comments in response to Tintor's complaint. Quite frankly, the actual content dispute does not bother me all that much and I am willing to admit that I could have made an error. I have to say though, I am both disappointed and disturbed by the apathy on display by several of the participants and how eager they are to make light of the objectively offensive remarks as anything but egregious incivility by a well-established administrator. I am not sure if I will join in the ANI discussion as I am not looking forward to being targeted by the complainee's supporters and enablers, but thank you for speaking up and being a voice of reason. Haleth (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Category Redirects
Hi, regarding my category additions to redirection pages, I am not sure why the edits were reverted. Wikipedia says that "a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories" (see the link below), and I think the categories I added were useful and defining additions. I also see other redirects on category pages all the time, so I always believed it was acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects


 * Sorry, but your assertion that Wikipedia's guidelines and policies support your indiscriminate category additions to redirection pages is simply incorrect. The full quote is actually "There are some situations where placing a redirect in an article category is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories". Your omission of the specific caveat of the situational appropriateness of category additions (my emphasis in bold) to redirection pages is curious at best, and disconcerting at worst. In my opinion, your additions do not actually fall under any of the exceptions specifically highlighted in that page: "Redirects having a target that is incompatible with the category", "Alternative names for articles", "Subtopic categorization", "Categorization of multiple taxonomies", or "Categorization of list entries". Haleth (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Roti canai
Could you check out Roti canai? I see you've made edits there before trying to counter POV editing. "Robepang" seems to be engaging in gastronationalism and POV editing, to bring primary focus on Malaysia while putting down other countries, removing mentions of Indonesia and Singapore, despite the dish being a regional Southeast Asian dish of South Indian origin. Examples include removing "most famous examples of Malaysian Indian/Singaporean Indian cuisine." to just "Malaysian Indian cuisine", or switching the usage of "Roti prata" as being influenced by Singapore to Johor to Johor to Singapore, counteracting the sources. Note their misleading edit summary + reverting without reason as well. 58.226.49.209 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I think you are blowing it out of proportion. I don't see anything objectionable with 's edits on roti canai, other then a hint of original research. Haleth (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Tags on Sera (Dragon Age) article
Thank you for your advice, but I am aware of Wikipedia editing guidelines: my edits don't violate the 3RR policy (three-revert rule). It's your responsibility to open a discussion if you want to dispute my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.70.161 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Re: Tags on Sera (Dragon Age) article
What you said is not true, consider these facts:

1. The other editor reverted the template because it accidentally populated redirect category Category:Video_game_articles_that_need_to_differentiate_between_fact_and_fiction.

2. The 3RR rule only applies to 3 edits made in 24 hours.