User talk:NegativeMP1

Your nomination of I Don't Love You is under review

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

File:Minecraft game logo 2023.png listed for discussion

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

Your nomination of I Don't Love You has passed

Your good article nomination of the article I Don't Love You has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RedShellMomentum -- RedShellMomentum (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

WikiCup 2026 May newsletter

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 Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.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

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

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

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

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Cache the map

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

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

«Poorly sourced and irrelevant to the current Counter-Strike 2»

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your nomination of Life on the Murder Scene is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Life on the Murder Scene has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Life on the Murder Scene has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Camilasdandelions -- Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)