Rhain

talk

2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014
2015 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2016 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2017 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2018 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2019 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2020 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2021 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2022 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2023 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2024 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)
2025 (Jan–Jun · Jul–Dec)

newsletters ...

... image: أمين

Question

Hi Rhain! :) Do you know how to fix the errors at List of most expensive television series? (the 2025 iflation ones) Timur9008 (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey! Easiest way is just to comment out the template for now, and replace it when {{Inflation}} is updated. It's a shame these errors are showing again—there was a period where inputting "2025" still worked—but at least we have a solution. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Timur9008 (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Apprecate it

Thanks for reverting it all i wanted to say this link about gta sa is much written at all and you should have added all that understood stuff since january 2024: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GTA:_San_Andreas&oldid=1331637954 Sapitanoa (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Babysharkboss2 already summarised my thoughts perfectly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

useful sources

Hi Rhain! :) I've been collecting sources on my sandbox for years now. (for companies, Rockstar, Naughty Dog, etc + other stuff)

Might be of some use to you to expand those pages User:Timur9008/sandbox.

These are not used in any articles to my knowledge. Timur9008 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! The Rockstar source is used on Grand Theft Auto III, per your recommendation, but the others look unused. Nice finds—I'm sure these will prove very useful! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

If I anything else regarding Rockstar/GTA I will be posting it there :) Timur9008 (talk) 11:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Part II FA

Hey, do you have any future plans to get the Last of Us Part II to FA? I am in the early stages of working on Horizon Zero Dawn and was looking at the original Last of Us article for some inspiration in some sections. I ended up at the Part II page and realized it was only a GA after thinking it was an FA for some reason. If you ever plan on doing it, I'd be happy to help where I can. -- ZooBlazer 08:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, good to hear from you! It's been almost a decade since my last FAC, so it's not something I really think about much anymore; I tend to consider GA a pretty good finish line before moving on. That being said, if I was going to consider nominating an article, The Last of Us Part II is probably one of the most likely candidates. I have plans to (finally) finish its spinoff articles quite soon, so I may consider going for FA around that time, and will certainly let you know if I need help. Good luck with your work on Horizon Zero Dawn! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:31, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, maybe a little random, but if you have time or interest, would you want to do a review for the Horizon FAC? If not, no worries and no rush. I'm just reaching out to editors every once in a while to hopefully prevent the nom from stalling. -- ZooBlazer 19:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I may not have enough time for a full review, but I'll try to keep an eye on it; if it's at risk of stalling completely, please give me a ping! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

It has stalled for 10 days after a good start. If you have time for just a small review or something, that would be great. Not a big deal if not. Surely it won't get archived with 3 prose supports, and passed image and source reviews... -- ZooBlazer 23:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you from People Make Games!!!

Hey Rhain,

This is Chris from People Make Games and I just wanted to say how much I appreciated you updating the wiki page for the New York Game Awards last night and then making the extra effort to add the award win to our page as well. That means an awful lot to a small team like us and I just wanted to let you know that your attention to detail is very much appreciated.

Best,

Chris ~2026-40207-6 (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chris! I'm always happy to keep the New York Game Awards article updated, so it made sense to add the accolade to the People Make Games article as well. Congratulations on the achievement, and keep up the great work! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC) (P.S. If you ever need help researching obscure information, especially about video games, Wikipedia editors are a great place to start!) (P.P.S. Bring back The Games Press...)

Your nomination of The Ark (Doctor Who) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article The Ark (Doctor Who) 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 Olliefant -- Olliefant (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Draft:The Hedge Knight (A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms)

Hi, Rhain, I hope you are well. This is the first article I have written myself from scratch (on enwiki). And since I based it on your article "When You're Lost in the Darkness", I would appreciate your opinion on whether you think it is ready to be submitted. Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Franar8 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Franar8: Good to hear from you! I'm honoured that you used some of my contributions as a guide. I won't read too deeply to avoid spoilers, but at a quick glance it looks great—each section appears to have a solid amount of information, and the references are all reliable and prove notability. It looks ready for mainspace to me; you've done some great work! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Absolutiva 01:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

A standard {{Alert}} would have sufficed this time (though I've made several AP edits in the past so I'm certainly well aware regardless), but thank you nonetheless. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Ark (Doctor Who)

On 6 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Ark (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a baby elephant that starred in The Ark was kept in a van outside the director's home the night before filming? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Ark (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Ark (Doctor Who)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Through the Valley (The Last of Us) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Through the Valley (The Last of Us) 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Template:A Song of Ice and Fire television franchise episodes. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The reversion already pings me, so the boilerplate template is a tad unnecessary, but thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When you break over 100 pages, you don't really get to complain that I am using a template to notify you. I took the time to not only fix your error, but also to notify you, kindly, of the problem. If you have such an aversion to being templated, then don't break things... I don't get this. I've got over 10 times the number of edits as you. If someone took the time to fix my mistake (which absolutely does happen), my response would be "doh, effed that up! Thanks for letting me know!" Why you choose to be hurt that I notified you about your error is bizarre... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I said thanks. Nobody is complaining or "hurt", and no pages were "broken". Happy editing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Rockstar Games Rolling Stone Feature

Hi Rhain! :)

This was mentioned on one of the old GTA fan websites here. (under Monday - November 18, 2002)

Might be of use if you can find it. I guess that could be the November 2002 issue? Timur9008 (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Good find! It's referring to issue 910; the writer also shared it on his website at some point too. Looks like there are a few interesting tidbits that should prove useful. Thanks for sharing! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Future Days (The Last of Us) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Future Days (The Last of Us) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Plifal -- Plifal (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding edits made on Hot Coffee (minigame) and other articles

Hello. Firstly, regarding the edit on Hot Coffee; I really don’t think it’s necessary to explain both the history of the Grand Theft Auto franchise and include information about the story in this article. The focus of the article is on the minigame and the subsequent controversy. I don’t believe it’s vital context for readers to know the story of the game or the fact that it was released after Vice City and expanded on its gameplay. It just adds unnecessary information that distracts from the main content of the article in my opinion.

Secondly regarding edits on made last month on both Music of Grand Theft Auto V and Soundtracks of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas; Considering both articles are about music in the same game series. I don’t see a reason not to link them together with each other. I get your point about them already being linked in the templates below the article, but those templates aren’t visible on mobile and it seems like standard practice to link them even if they are linked in a template at the bottom.

Thanks, OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I think some brief information about San Andreas's size and scope compared to Vice City is useful, as it establishes context regarding Rockstar's focus on realism—which is relevant to the gameplay mode being developed in the first place. I agree it was a little overly detailed, hence my trimming, but I think the current revision is sound.

I still find the § See also links a little unnecessary, but I get your point and don't feel too strongly about it. Thanks again for reaching out, and please let me know if you'd like any clarification or a third opinion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Rat King (The Last of Us)

Hey,, I see that there's a good topic for The Last of Us, and in order to avoid messing that up, I wanna bring this to GA. Yet, I ain't ever played an entry in the series, so I was wondering, could you help tweak the details of the concept and appearances to be more accurate/add any missing content? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. The good topic is for the first game, so it shouldn't be impacted by this article, but I'll definitely take a look anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, you're right! Thanks for helping out anyway. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Great work with those changes and improvements. Do you reckon it's GA-ready? Also, do you want to be co-nom? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Please feel free to adjust my changes as much as you'd like. I think it's in a good shape for GAN; I'd be happy to be co-nom, especially if you want someone more familiar with the story to fall back on. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

By the by, I might look into sources for characters from the Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted, and The Last of Us series; do you have any interest in writing up articles based on such sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm definitely interested if the sources exist! I'm not sure any other characters are notable enough to justify standalone articles, but we can start by expanding their sections on the character lists and then consider splitting from there. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:19, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I'll let you know whenever I find anything Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Aight, got this set up: User:Cukie Gherkin/The Last of Us, Red Dead, and Uncharted. Not necessarily asking you who's notable, but of the Red Dead cast, aside from Dutch and Sadie, who would you suggest I look into? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Dutch and Sadie are definitely the top picks. Besides them, maybe Micah, Charles, Hosea, Lenny, and Sean; possibly Bill, Javier, Abigail, and Jack as they appeared in the first game as well. I'm sure there are some interesting and insightful tidbits about most other characters on that list too, but that should be a good place to start. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

All right, thanks, I'll keep those in mind Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: Found sources for Bill, Nadine Ross, Sadie Adler, and Dutch van der Linde (also, I like the idea of having an audio file to play on your user talk page, great touch) - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and for all your work! I suspected you'd find plenty for Sadie and Dutch in particular. I personally prefer to keep as much contained at the lists as possible, but I'm happy to look into these soon to see if there's enough to split (if not, their list sections will improve anyway, so it's a win-win). Most of Bill's sources seem to be about the TV version (and largely the episode itself) but happy to look into this too. (And thanks! Hope the sounds didn't put you to sleep...) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The Bill sources definitely skew toward the show, but I think that's not a bad thing; honestly, it really helps out IMO, like this source that discuses how Bill's relationship with Frank was changed for the show Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The whole copyright hubbub

I'll be honest, I think this is definitely something that needs a broader discussion with the project, maybe wikipedia as a whole, but I'm not sure how to go about it. There's something deeply questionable where we're putting a lot of stock into a flag on a video that really any intern can set, especially when the main source lacks it (case in point, the RE4 remake videos, US main and France). I'm just not sure the right way to go about it.

It definitely feels like gaming a system that shouldn't work. It doesn't help that Commons is, frankly, an inconsistent mess; here we can point more cleanly to policy and whatnot often refined to a pinpoint, there it's all over. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading several different discussions about this topic, I can understand both arguments: most files were almost certainly tagged by mistake; but it's also not really our place to make those assumptions (any more than we would with an individual user on Flickr, for instance). I guess an argument is whether the subsidiary channels have the legal right to even apply such a license—you're right that the original Japanese trailers don't have it either—but that would take a greater legal mind than my own. This almost certainly needs a larger centralised discussion (probably primarily on Commons) rather than the aforementioned variety of local ones. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:25, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 37th GLAAD Media Awards

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 37th GLAAD Media Awards requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. 11WB (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

black ops 6 + seven samurai fair use clip

hi!! in the first above-mentioned article you uploaded a short fair-use clip demonstrating a game feature, i would like to do something similar for seven samurai but am not really sure of the mechanics of it. please may you explain it to me? thanks for reading!--Plifal (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey! For that particular video (not my original upload, I just tidied and reuploaded), I simply trimmed and exported the original video, and then ran it through Ezgif a few times (to crop, resize, optimise, etc.). Let me know if you'd like more specific information, or if I can help more directly. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rhain, thank you for your help! i added the clip but it seems not to play automatically unless clicked on? i tried resizing the image but it didn't work. when included outside the use of |thumb it seems to work fine. do you have any advice?--Plifal (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it might have been related to the size; I got this note on the original file:

Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated.

Never seen that before, but it's useful to know! I've reduced the resolution and reuploaded, which appears to have fixed the problem. Let me know if you have any other issues, or questions about anything else! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you so much, that's very kind of you! let me know if i can help you at all in the future!!--Plifal (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

GAs

Hey there... I was in WikiJail yesterday, but I'm now out on parole whenever you want to do the rest of the GAs. No rush, though! I just didn't want you to think the GAs were abandoned since there was a strike through my name yesterday. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! Glad you've been freed. No worries, I'd planned to continue the reviews regardless—I'll try to leave some comments soon. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Path (The Last of Us) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article The Path (The Last of Us) 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Massacre (Doctor Who) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article The Massacre (Doctor Who) 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Massacre (Doctor Who) is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article The Massacre (Doctor Who) has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Massacre (Doctor Who) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The Massacre (Doctor Who) 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 Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Feathered Quill Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts on getting The Massacre and The Ark to Good Article Status, while also writing extensively for the next 2 serials and getting them to a Good Article Nomination phase. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 00:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I've been thoroughly enjoying the work, especially considering my extended break after the last one. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Likewise congratulations! It's always a joy seeing these pop up since they're always so well-researched and high quality. Wishing you the best of luck for your future editing endeavors! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Writing Classic Who season articles

Heya Rhain. There's been a goal listed at the goals page for Doctor Who season 5 which I'm aiming to chip away at right now (Finished The Tomb of the Cybermen recently and aim to hit up The Ice Warriors at some point in the future). While I'm likely not going to be able to get to the season article for some time, do you have any suggestions for writing these, especially compared to the show's revival? I'm a little less versed in Classic Who stuff so I'd appreciate any general notes or suggestions based on what you usually do for the season articles like your work on the first two Hartnell seasons. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Congrats on all your great work so far! My primary suggestion would be to continue what you've already been doing: working on the individual articles. A lot of my work on the first two season articles consisted of taking anything important or interesting from the serials and trying to make it flow together neatly (one exception is the § Promotion sections, which are mostly original).

Admittedly, it has been some time since I last wrote a Doctor Who season article, and my writing and research style has evolved quite a bit since then; I intend to work on another one soon, so I'll let you know if I have any notes or suggestions based on that. Please let me know if I can help more specifically or if you'd ever like me to read over anything! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Once I hit up The Ice Warriors I'll start drafting up the season article with the other GAs that are finished and try to follow your format and suggestions. If you'd be willing to take a look over it when that comes, I'll let you know when it eventually gets to a decent stage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

February 2026

	The Bronze Figure Skating Barnstar
	Thank you much for all of your help in ushering six skating articles from the 2022 Winter Olympics to Good Article status! Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm honoured to make the podium! We may want to wait until after my test results before we start handing out medals, though...

All I really did was read over others' great work and leave a few nitpicky comments—the true winners, of course, are the editors like you who have worked so tirelessly on this series. They've been lots of fun to review, and I'm looking forward to seeing the last article get its own bronze soon! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 11:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why Bella isn't listed first in the cast of characters of season two?

Why do you already have the list situated for season 3? The credits haven't even populated yet. Moscriptcallum (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

As I explained, Ramsey isn't listed first in season 2 because they are not credited first. The season 3 article starts with Dever, based on the reliable sources confirming she will lead the series, while the rest of the list is based on the previous credits order (Ramsey to Wright) followed by new characters (DuVall). It will be adjusted and split into subsections once we have more information. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

what information are you basing this off from? bella lead the second season. in several episodes, pedro isn't even in the credits Moscriptcallum (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's based on the second-season premiere, in which, like the first season, Pascal received top billing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

you know the season is more than just the premiere, right?

season 3 didn't even have a premiere yet and you already have the cast ranked Moscriptcallum (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Cast lists are ordered based on earliest appearances—in the case of season 2, that would be the premiere. I explained the season 3 ordering above. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

bella's number 1 on the call sheet according to this article

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-features/bella-ramsey-the-last-of-us-interview-ellie-season-2-1236195178/ Moscriptcallum (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but only from season 2's third episode onwards. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

she was the lead for the 1st and second episodes, too. she didn't just disappear Moscriptcallum (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ramsey was a lead, not the lead; Pascal still got top billing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

top billing according to who? Moscriptcallum (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You're going around in circles. Rhain has already explained the billing is from the first episode in which Bella was second and Pedro was first. -- ZooBlazer 06:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Even the article you linked confirms it: becoming the show's top-billed star took Ramsey to another level. Pascal had top billing; Ramsey took it after he left. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Screenshots of Xbox Series X/S games has been nominated for renaming

Category:Screenshots of Xbox Series X/S games has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 22:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for The Massacre (Doctor Who)

On 14 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Massacre (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the rewrites to The Massacre were so extensive that the original writer briefly asked for his name to be removed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Massacre (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Massacre (Doctor Who)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive re-adding of redundant categories

At The Last of Us (video game), you reverted my removal of redundant categories while citing WP:EPON. WP:EPON itself doesn't have any relevant material, but I assume you meant to cite WP:CATMAIN just below it. In particular, I assume you reverted with this sentence in mind: "Articles with an eponymous category may be categorized in the broader categories that would be present if there were no eponymous category." However, as I pointed out to you in my next edit summary on the article, The Last of Us (video game) is not an article with an eponymous category; that would be the article for the whole series, The Last of Us. You ignored this explanation and simply stated that incorrectly using categories is "standard practice" - a very weak argument; it's inevitable that an online collaborative project since 2001 will have users who don't know the ins-and-outs of every guideline. You didn't give any reasons for WHY it's good to add redundant categories or why Wikipedia's guidelines on how categories should work are supposedly bad for the encyclopedia in this instance. You then admitted what I already had a hunch about - that you were doing this not because of your own beliefs, but on behalf of other editors.

Can you please explain why you think you're improving the encyclopedia with these actions? ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe my edit summaries are already pretty clear. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Then you are extremely mistaken. You haven't given a single explanation as to why the guidelines set out in WP:CAT#Categorizing pages, WP:SUBCAT, and WP:CATDD should be ignored, other than "lots of people do ignore them", and now you are tracking my edit history to follow me around to other articles in which I have correctly applied the guidelines and revert those. ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

That reads like a single explanation to me. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think the guidelines should be ignored? Up to this point, you still haven't explained why you think so. If you continue to stonewall me while following me around and reverting my edits, I'd say that could arguably fall under WP:HARASS. ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw your contributions, noticed something to address, and addressed it. If you feel you are being harassed, please see WP:DWH. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I said if you were to continue like this in an intentional manner, it could be taken that way. Why do you refuse to provide an argument against the guidelines? ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I've provided my explanation, and made relevant edits to some categories. Your dissatisfaction does not imply my refusal. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

You have not provided an explanation for why you disagree with the guidelines, and are refusing to do so. ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the guideline. Do you have an issue with the current categorisation? – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I have an issue with you reverting my edits in which I make articles in line with the guideline ~2026-13653-92 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, my edits are also aligned with the guideline. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you may be interested in this discussion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Through the Valley (The Last of Us) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Through the Valley (The Last of Us) 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of The Path (The Last of Us) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article The Path (The Last of Us) 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 Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Rat King (The Last of Us)

On 24 March 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rat King (The Last of Us), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one scholar called a monster from The Last of Us a "metaphorical representation of patriarchal power"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rat King (The Last of Us). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rat King (The Last of Us)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Platform release line break

Hey @Rhain, I don't know if you've noticed but Template:GamePlatformKey has been removed and replaced by Template:VgPlatforms. I've had a look and some abbreviations have changed (e.g. Xbox Series X/S). Now I've got a mini-headache over which abbreviations to use: the old ones, the new ones or the ones in Template:Video game reviews.

I was thinking maybe sometimes a line break without abbreviations is preferable over disputed abbreviations (which leads to edit wars/constant reverts). I've edited the Red Dead Redemption infobox release field to unabbreviate Android and Series X/S (to finally stop those Android reverts and maybe prevent future Series X/S disputes). What do you think? Feel free to revert it though if you aren't so keen. Wrath X (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

I would personally still follow Template:Video game reviews, which is maintained by several editors and follows consensus (e.g., it uses "XSX/S" per this discussion). I still prefer to abbreviate but I don't feel too strongly; I think this revision looks the best for brevity, but it's already under a collapsible list anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:30, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

Hey Rhain, wanted to ask for some input here since this in the Classic Who venue of questioning. A while back, I did some work on Dodo Chaplet, but the reception she has is admittedly very lacking. Everything in the article is basically everything I could find regarding specifically her, and even in a weaker case I'm not sure is enough to sustain a seperate article, especially given her likely overlap with the wider development of Doctor Who season 3 conception wise.

The Companion (Doctor Who) article is currently in a state where any merge would likely lose a lot, so I'm not really sure where to proceed here. Redirect/merge to season 3? Leave as is until a rewrite can be performed? I'm not entirely certain, so I'd appreciate any advice you may have, positive or negative, on this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. I would personally leave the article for now, as I think it's in fine shape for the moment. There might still be room for improvement too—Frankel 2018 has plenty of interesting comments that might be worth including, and I recall some minor points from reviewers of The Massacre, The Gunfighters, and especially The War Machines. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll leave it as is for now then. I'll likely revisit it at some point and see if I can't incorporate some of your suggestions, then work from there. Thanking you kindly for the input! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Daleks masterplan

Sorry got my maths wrong, I'd worked it out from what was listed on the page and thought it didn't add up. ~2026-20726-84 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem—easy mistake to make, and even easier to fix. Thanks for the message. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:13, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm using this page right it might appear as a new topic, thanks for your reply, I was still trying to figure out how I'd done it when I sent that, it was the way it displayed on my phone, it started a new line after the "6-" In "6-9" that threw me off, didn't count 7 and 8, thought it was unlikely doctor who fans wouldn't have spotted that. Looks like you've done a lot for doctor who on here, thanks for that, I find it really useful when I want to check something. ~2026-20726-84 (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

LOL the reply option wasn't working/loading and suddenly is now, I'll leave this to the pros in future... ~2026-20726-84 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I assumed it was due to that section's formatting too. I guess the best solution is to find those missing episodes... – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:42, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh I needed an account to reply, it disappears when the page refreshes.

I always suspected, with this been the only missing dalek story they haven't animated and released maybe the episodes they are aware of but can't get to were from this story, although it could just be the length of it putting them off. Although if they split it into two they could do a reversable cover on one of them for mission to the unknown and charge twice for it.

Just watched it all today with loose cannon reconstructions of the missing ones, I'd not even seen the 3 we already had, somehow the only existing episodes I'd not seen, think I skipped them in favour of the cd version while driving during my attempt to watch the entire series a while back. Bignorts (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of video games listed among the best. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• 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.

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. Again, please see WP:OWN. It is fairly clear that you edit the article frequently and remove changes that are not to your liking. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:55, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

​Out of genuine curiosity, where did you get that impression? Your edits to that article are the first that I've reverted in eight months. I'm barely even a top five contributor (less than 8% of the total edits and around 3% authorship). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Your edits to the article are usually reversions of other users edits, which is my original point that you seem to be muddling, whether intentionally or not. You also revert edits without using a clear edit summary. (Like you did when you first reverted me, instead saying "ce" instead of actually indicating that you reverted changes.) Furthermore, You did revert someone 1 month ago and failed to mention it, you've actually done this same reversion to 2 different people, and this time you did not indicate it was a reversion. Furthermore, 70% percent of your edit strings to the article in the past couple years are reversions. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:30, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit was a copyedit, not a reversion; I added pseudo-headings, corrected your misuse of "Anime", and changed "art forms" to "lists" (which I've restored). I did not revert your edit (i.e., to match the previous revision). The diff you linked is from 2024; I assume you're referring to this one from last month, which is more tidying an WP:AWB formatting error than a full reversion but sure, point taken. Most of my edits to the articles are reversions because I monitor it for incorrect entries—a common occurrence. It has nothing to do with ownership. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So Rhain monitors an article to revert non-constructive edits. Multiple editors do this on that article, myself included. And your immediate conclusion to these reversions was warnings (see also: WP:DTTR) and an accusation of WP:OWN . You even reverted an edit of Rhain's that was 100% justified per WP:ATODAY (which you reinstated a link to).

Honestly, I saw your edit, I probably would've reverted it too but I didn't because I figured you'd correct the art form being named shortly afterwards. But, doubling down on it, and re-adding a blacklisted link alongside spamming an editor with accusations and warnings over a non-issue in the process, is appalling. λ NegativeMP1 04:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to List of video games listed among the best. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Third reminder, please see WP:OWN - R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:58, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. While I'm there, I might also have a read of WP:EW (Avoid posting a generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself) and the essay WP:REVEXP and guide H:FIES (It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, "meaningful edit summaries?" Like how you said "ce" in your edit summary when you did the first reversion to my edits and yourself gave no detail? The reversion was also lightning fast and I did not have a chance to copy-edit it myself. (within 2 minutes of me making an edit). I can't recall ever being reverted by someone that quickly in my 20 years here. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

ce = copyedit, which is what that edit was—not a reversion. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

So, you're annoyed that others copyedit your work when you add things to Wikipedia that aren't copyedited? And then you make an angry reply after a good response? If you want to be defensive, probably not best to do it after you start an argument.

Also, you seem to have used the wrong template. Copyediting is not edit warring. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, for some reason, you have given a warning for violating the three revert rule, even though Rhain only made 2 reverts. You, however, made three. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, this is a generic edit warring warning, which can still be relevant regardless of the 3RR. In this case, though, both of us only made two reverts each anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:00, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Stop WP:FOLLOWING editors

Noticed you just edited right after me on other articles: List of films voted the best (edit 2) and List of television shows listed among the best (edit 2)
See title. (Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in incidents and arbitration cases. Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about another editor. .) - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I followed the links that you added to this article. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

You edited the content that I added. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:05, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

It appears so, but only because I followed the links there, not your contributions. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

What do I put as a title? I should put something, but I don't know what. Hi!

Hello, and I hope you are having a good day! I saw that you made contributions to my sandbox. Thank you for helping.

[I usually go on a tangent here about my current goal, but you probably know what it is, so I don't think I need to include it.]

Would you like to help with the goal I'm pursuing? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I haven't really played Civilization, but as a fan of history, I support your initiative. I'm busier with other work at the moment, but I'll definitely keep an eye on the project and let you know if there's anything I feel I can help with! Don't hesitate to reach out if you need anything, too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! For the sandbox I’m using to gather work to do, see here. Feel free to contribute/add stuff to the sandbox. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Red Dead Redemption 2 sales chart

Hi. I wanted to thank you for your edit regarding Red Dead Redemption 2's sales chart. I tried understanding how to make a table like that with the aid of AI, but it wasn't turning out like I wanted so I gave up, then I added the table you reverted, and you made the exact chart I envisioned. Thank you again for your effort. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! I hope you're well. I'd actually been considering adding a graph for a while, and your edit finally prompted me to look into it (after lots of experimenting with the new Chart extension); I like that the graph allows us to track quarterly sales as well, but your table looked great too. Hopefully we can eventually adjust the height, since I think it's a bit too tall at the moment, but it seems suitable for now. I was meant to drop you a message to get your thoughts on the graph but it completely slipped my mind, so thanks for reaching out! Happy editing. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 18 § Draft:Untitled Grand Theft Auto game until a consensus is reached. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Infobox television episode template

RE this edit summary I have, multiple times; nothing there prohibits this: Well, "prohibit" is a fairly strong word, but the documentation does indicate that the format for lists should use basic bulleted list format (*). This is noted at the very beginning of the Parameters section: For most of the fields below, if there are multiple entries, separate them using bulleted lists (*). |music= is one of these particular parameters.

The reason for this may not be readily apparent from the docs, but the template already applies {{plainlist}} code to this parameter. Adding {{plainlist}}, {{ubl}}, or any other similar template is redundant and unnecessary.

Reverting this correction just puts the article back into the Category:Pages using infobox television episode with unnecessary list markup maintenance category to be corrected. I've cleaned up around 1000 or so with my bot, with what's left in the maint cat needing to be done manually. I'd appreciated it if you would simply self-revert your change or at least correct the param to the correct format. I'm not going to edit war over it, and there are still another 800 articles pending fixing. But eventually, the maint cat is going to be cleaned up and we'll be coming back around to this one at that point. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm aware of the maintenance category and the reason for the edit. I already changed the parameter per template documentation, yet it is still in the maintenance category anyway as the templates each use line breaks and unbulleted lists; I suspect this is something you will continue to encounter, if you haven't already. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I suspect here it's still in due the use of {{Based on2}}. There are other similar instances I have noticed, such as {{Work by author}}, which is similar. It might be a false positive in the way the maint cat is set up, but I'm not sure. Thanks for making the change. ButlerBlog (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, both of those templates use line breaks and unbulleted lists, which is probably what's flagging them in the maintenance category. It makes me wonder if |music= is worth tracking in that category (perhaps it could be separate, like the |based_on= para), but I'll leave it to the experts. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Day One (The Last of Us) is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Day One (The Last of Us) 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 ZooBlazer -- ZooBlazer (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Your nomination of Day One (The Last of Us) has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Day One (The Last of Us) 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 ZooBlazer -- ZooBlazer (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Steam Controller (1st generation)

Mind deciding on a new photo? Trade (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it to the regular editors, but this seems like a good replacement for now. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:01, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of Module:Based on2

Module:Based on2 has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Street Finder question

Hi Rhain! :) I've created Street Finder but I'm not sure what to clasify it as. I think mapping software is accurate? (going by the sources) Timur9008 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks good to me, especially if it's based on the sources. Good work finding niche references, as always! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

For amazing work on Rockstar Games articles

	The Rockstar Games Barnstar
	I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the incredible amount of care and effort you've put into Rockstar Games-related articles. Thank you for all the time and heart you've put into this, and you absolutely deserve this! Umais🗣 07:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

My own creation bestowed upon me! Thank you; this is very kind. Thanks for all of your great work on here too, Rockstar-related or otherwise. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 07:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

The barnstar has come home. Very well deserved, and thank you! Umais🗣 18:50, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Rockstar Games Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your great contributions to the GTA and Red Dead series for all these years! Keep up the good work man -- Fortek67 (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm only one of many such contributors, but this is greatly appreciated and very thoughtful—thank you. And thank you for all of your contributions! – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 22:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Asking for some assistance

Hey Rhain, it's been awhile since we last spoke. I'm currently working on a new draft for Annabel O'Hagan who is known for playing Steph Harper in the Fallout show and I was wondering if you could help me on this. I already got started on her page a couple of weeks ago including her early life, career, filmography, and references, but I'm not too sure if I'm missing some information elsewhere. Would you like to help me on it? Mxhyn16 (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Good to hear from you! Hope you're doing well. I took a quick look and added some information and references, but you've definitely made a great start. I'll keep an eye out for more; I imagine there'll be even more information available during press for Fallout season 3 as well. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 01:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Rhain! I really appreciate you adding more information to it. I'll let you know if I ever need some assistance. Mxhyn16 (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Overwatch (video game) for merging to Overwatch (disambiguation)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Overwatch (video game) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be merged into Overwatch (disambiguation).

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwatch (video game) 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Max Payne and Max Payne 2 ref

Hi! :) Found this you can use (sales)

Pinging User:IceWelder as well. Timur9008 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Template

You literally reverted my edit a couple of minutes after I saved it, without even waiting for me to finish my comment on the discussion page. Please don't do that. Secondly, as has been stated many times above, articles or templates should not contain any slang or jargon, especially unilaterally. If you have any suggestions, I've opened a thread on the discussion page. Quickly reverting edits without any attempt at discussion is not a solution; it only increases the risk of escalation. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly revert each other's changes. Please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, use the talk page to discuss how the page can represent consensus among the editors involved. Here is some advice on how to do this. If discussions get stuck, you can request a third opinion, ask for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution.

Edit warring can result in being blocked from editing, especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts within 24 hours on one page. Undoing any other editor's work, in whole or in part, involving the same or different material, is a revert. You can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

@Solaire the knight: Please don't revert without explanation. You have not attempted to explain this edit anywhere. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, what? You're literally replying to this in the thread where I explain my edits? And I've also pointed out my thread on the discussion page several times, which you continue to ignore. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Your messages here and on the talk page are about abbreviations, slang, and jargon, none of which seem to have any relevance to this edit (except for the abbreviation of Project X Zone 2, I suppose). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Just because you weren't satisfied with the explanation doesn't mean there weren't any. If you disagreed with it, you could have stated so in your reply. But you've effectively started an edit war, claiming I didn't provide an explanation, which was clearly misleading. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Where is the explanation for this edit? Again, you've started discussions about abbreviations and slang, but none of those were present in the edit you reverted. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:39, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted the edit that reduced the names of unnumbered games to just one word in their titles, and also removed the word "games" from the first line. And you couldn't have missed it, since you already replied to my comment about it. This was precisely the topic of my discussion page, asking for a consistent style. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

You did none of those things in this edit, which is what I'm referring to. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to justify the edit war and the ignoring of the topic on the discussion page by saying that I mentioned it in the comment that opened the topic, rather than explaining it here? Not to mention that my comment was in the very first edit. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No—by "none of those things", I'm referring to your "I reverted the edit..." explanation. My point is that you did not explain any of the changes made in this edit—not here, nor there, nor in your edit summaries. Your changes to the unnumbered games, etc., have no relevance to that particular edit. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if we forget that I left a brief explanation in the very first comment, continuing the edit war while repeatedly ignoring my instructions on an open topic just because it was not in the edit description sounds very strange, to say the least. Especially when you directly write that you noticed the fact that the topic was opened only when I wrote on your discussion page, while at the same time quoting several of my edits in the description of which I spoke about the same thing. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No, this reversion remains unexplained. Again, the open thread has no relevance to this edit. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 01:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Then what stopped you from asking me to clarify what I meant? You couldn't have simply assumed that I wasn't explaining it, despite my link to the thread, just because you unilaterally decided that my explanations were incorrect? Solaire the knight (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Responded below. ☔

This isn't even funny anymore. I directly addressed the topic on the discussion page and even wrote to you on your discussion page. But without any arguments, you simply retract your edit, claiming I didn't explain anything. This is a blatant provocation of an edit war. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, I made this edit about 40 seconds after your message here. It's not like I went out of my way to ignore it. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:35, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Then why didn't you refresh the page and look at it when I brought the topic to your attention again on the discussion page? Did you simply undo my edit, ignoring the comment and the linked pages? This is a very problematic style of working on the article, which, as expected, ultimately provoked an edit war. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit had nothing to do with your discussion on the talk page (which I didn't see until after your message here anyway). – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 00:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've already explained the gist of the matter to you more than 5-6 times, and I don't think there's any need to do it a seventh time. Especially when you seem to be confusing "I didn't find your explanations reasonable" with "you didn't provide any explanations," or even completely ignoring my open thread until the third time I mentioned it. If you still don't leave your opinion in the created thread, I will simply assume that you are ignoring the question. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this discussion about the abbreviated names. I inadvertently restored them once as part of a larger rollback, but I don't feel strongly about them otherwise. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 01:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

So, you simply started an edit war without even trying to clarify my motives when they confused you. You even went so far as to directly accuse me of not having an explanation simply because you didn't understand or agree with it. To be honest, I don’t see any point in further communication, at least in this format. Solaire the knight (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not just an accusation; you've still never explicitly explained this edit. All of your messages here and there are about abbreviations and slang, which is fine—it's good that you started discussions for those—but my edit here had nothing to do with that; it was solely to add line breaks for spacing and combine the films under one subgroup (and some minor stuff at the bottom). That was the "unexplained changes" I was referring to, in case it wasn't clear; I would never use that phrasing just for an explanation I disagree with. – Rhain ☔ ^he
_him 01:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)