User talk:Sariel Xilo

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

If you are taking requests (2025)

If there's an article you think I'd be interested in working on or an article you need help with, please drop the request here. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March

Thanks for the welcome Sariel!

I completely understand and I'll have those citations sorted in a jiffy. Apologies, I tend to follow the pattern. As there were no citations present and the provided information was very different than the source material, I figured I would just follow suit and adjust it to be in line with the actual rules.

I'll go revert/update with appropriate citations and wording close as close to the source material in existing format.

I appreciate you reaching out and please feel free to review my updates and provide feedback! Zanithar (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that the new changes are adequately sourced?[1] BOZ (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ and Zanithar: I don't have access to the 3E/3.5 books to verify and stylistically, I think the citations should be on every line and not just at the colon symbol. I also think the lists under 3rd Edition & 5th Edition should be trimmed and summarized because it is drifting into WP:GAMECRUFT (#5 & #7) and we don't need a detailed guide (WP:NOTGUIDE) on a single edition's Code of Conduct. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, I did not put a code of conduct list there. I merely corrected an existing one that was very incorrect.

Although it is slightly annoying from an effort perspective, I have no issue removing it completely.

The actual source is a paragraph not a list. Again, i merely kept the original format. Zanithar (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3rd edition:

https://anyflip.com/jeuoi/pnpx/basic

3.5 edition:

https://archive.org/details/players-handbook-v-3.5 Zanithar (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April

One of the few remaining D&D fictional element articles; do you have any sources for Eilistraee? BOZ (talk) 03:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Tharizdun. BOZ (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on Tharizdun yesterday when the AfD hit my watchlist yesterday but I couldn't find anything via the Wikipedia Library. Just went through for Eilistraee, and I only found a dissertation that someone else mentioned. Sariel Xilo (talk)` Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/tsr09326for2drowoftheunderdark/mode/2up

Page 21 Zanithar (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanithar: Generally when fictional elements are going through the articles for deletion process, the concern is that the article in question doesn't have enough secondary sources to meet the notability requirements for a standalone article. I've often had decent luck in finding sources & updating articles during AfD to meet the WP:HEY standard; however, unfortunately, I'm not finding any academic sources for the two fictional gods BOZ mentioned above. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figure there is a good chance you might have some interest in Matt Collville. :) BOZ (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some cleanup on that one but I couldn't find any non-primary sources for his work before his time at Turtle Rock Studios. Probably could also use something about how his YouTube platform led to MCDM. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May

They are not in any immediate danger at the moment, but just wondering if you've got anything more to improve Moradin or Bahamut? :) BOZ (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through some of the academic databases via the Wiki Library & nothing popped unfortunately. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for checking! BOZ (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see anything for Vincent Dutrait? BOZ (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June

@BOZ: If you have any suggestions tagged with {{Unreferenced}} or {{BLP unsourced}}, let me know since I'm participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/June 2025. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will take a look! Vincent Dutrait above has been sourced better, but it also wasn't June yet. :D I will check the various gaming WikiProject lists and see what there is. If drafts count, you could look at Draft:High & Low - Card Game. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out... there are many. :o

• https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Role-playing_games.html#Cites%20no%20sources
• https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Dungeons_%26_Dragons.html#Cites%20no%20sources
• https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Board_and_table_games.html#Cites%20no%20sources

You could peruse those lists and/or I could pick out a certain number that you could take a look at BOZ (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know about that tool! I'll check them out as a starting point. Thanks again! Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Like I said about the draft above, if those count I can take a look and see if there are other unsourced drafts. If articles that were redirected due to being unsourced also count, I can look through my enormous deletion lists for those as well. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is limited to mainspace articles with those two tags (basically a flip of the {{Citation needed}} drive which was limited to that tag). Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some of those are covered in Designers & Dragons, and I'm confident that Atomic Sock Monkey Press is well-covered there at minimum. BOZ (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they count because they have different sourcing tags, but Blades of the Tiger and Ken Frank (see talk page) are unsourced. BOZ (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check Internet Archive in a little bit, but if I find anything for Free Parking, I will let you know so you can take the credit. ;) BOZ (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found, if you can do anything with these:

• https://archive.org/details/monopolycompanio0000orba/page/186/mode/2up?q=%22free+parking%22
• https://archive.org/details/monopolycompanio00orba_0/page/186/mode/2up?q=%22free+parking%22
• https://archive.org/details/monopoly0000orba/page/182/mode/2up?q=%22free+parking%22

The false positives from the name definitely made it a challenge, so there is probably more out there that could potentially save it, but this should allow you to claim it for the challenge. :) Adding the name of the designer Charles Phillips or the slogan "Feed the Meter" helped weed out the false positives a little bit. BOZ (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters exists once again. :) BOZ (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous Messages

Hey!

Can you block those bad guys reverting my edits?

Reason: They keep thinking that the Baby Shark and PJ Masks should stop airing! LukeJolly3 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeJolly3: I'm not an admin but you could make a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I doubt it'll go well for you since you've been told repeatedly to stop your own edit war behavior; you must provide reliable sources & stop including original research. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veilguard

It seems like the article has stabilized. I'm recalling the RFC with a lot of different points, and I realize that it meant it was hard to track the feedback. Was there anything outstanding that needs further discussion? Shooterwalker (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Sorry for the delay but wanted to think about this. I think the main feedback that came out of the RfC was broadly summary sentences are acceptable and while not automatically a SYNTH issue, should be reviewed & have sources. The other point that came up but was outside the scope of the RfC was that some editors think the Reception section is a too long. Veilguard's critical reception subsection is just over 1100 words while Inquisition's critical reception subsection is just over 800 words; Inquisition is a good article so maybe that length is a good target? I think what would help is splitting off some of the critical reception into a themes/analysis subsection; the video games MOS doesn't mention this specifically but I think the guidance from other media types could be used (MOS:FILMTHEMES/MOS:TV#Themes and analysis & MOS:NOVELS#Major themes). LGBTQ+ representation could be moved there (which would reduce the CR to just over 950 words) & maybe the paragraph on the game's companions; we would probably need to find sources about how Veilguard continues Dragon Age franchise themes such as including companions & LGBTQ+ representation (basically broader analysis than what is currently in the reception section). Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds right to me. I could see discussion stalling about whether summary sentences are appropriate, but they are ordinary practice even at featured articles. There's always room to modify the sentence until it's uncontroversial, and even in some cases they can reference sources that comment on broad opinion. I'm guessing that at least got things unstuck, even if it didn't directly answer every question in the RFC.

The length of the reception section is unrelated and not urgent. Three paragraphs is a good target, using Inquisition as a reference. That can be any order: "most positive", "less positive", "most critical"; or (in the case of Inquisition) "gameplay", "narrative", "world/levels". Those categories aren't prescriptive, and just examples of how to cover the reception of the entire game quickly, with the appropriate level of detail.

Veilguard just often fails to get to the point -- the product of an article that has been expanded one sentence at a time, over the course of weeks and months. Even just the opening paragraph about the critical reception could be two sentences: (1) It was well reviewed on metacritic and opencritic, and (2) it was review bombed but it wasn't representative.

There are four paragraphs about story and character, and somehow I'm still left wondering about the game experience, like graphics, audio, gameplay, and so on. I understand this is a story-driven game, but it's still getting lost in the details. Individual characters can be covered at articles about the individual characters, or even a "list of characters in Veilguard" article. Character lists would be consistent with other games in the series, and the sources absolutely do support that as a separate article. This article needs to be summary style article about the game, and reception should never be too far from talking about the game overall. Individual characters, subplots, and themes lose that context. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving some thought as to a manageable first step. Reading the reception section again, there is clearly enough material for an article about Taash. I'm willing to bet there is enough material for at least a few other characters as well. Is that something you think you'd be willing to take on? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shooterwalker: While I enjoy editing character articles sometimes, I've held off because it seems like the space around Veilguard has become a minefield. If you draft anything, I would be happy to contribute (maybe with RefIdeas?) but I don't think I'm the person to take the lead; other editors don't seem to be taking my edits in this space in good faith & I don't want to get your efforts mired simply because I edited. It's unfortunate but I'm not really sure how else to handle it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel. I have been shellshocked by bad faith editors in the past. The dust does eventually settle, and the bad faith is usually spotted for what it is. Focus on articles that bring you satisfaction in the meantime. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sariel Xilo @Shooterwalker It looks like the article has become unstable again. I just noticed your discussion here. I’ll leave it at the one revert for now, but the stable version should be discussed and resolved through consensus, or not? Simply removing content that was widely discussed and has remained in the article for months doesn’t seem appropriate to me. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestigium Leonis: When I did the initial reversion (and the only revert I did), I thought it was simply a new editor getting started with maybe a focus on grammar or condensing without realizing they were removing the main subject in various headings. I have no idea why there was bunch of edit warring subsequently; I added a clearer explanation at Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Edit warring for my revert (I could have done a better edit summary!) but none of the editors who reverted have explained why they think the changes should stay... However, NutmegCoffeeTea has reported us as being SOCKs which I've called "a bad faith report which is retaliatory in a nature". Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the investigation was closed due to "Insufficient evidence" so I'm glad that didn't take long. I saw you changed your status to semi-retired because of some IP stalking; it totally sucks when things like that happen (I experienced a bit of that in February). I hope you'll consider returning after taking a break. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’ve seen the investigation. Since it was closed so quickly, it’s probably for the best to just let it go and move on. About the rest: I’ve been extremely stressed in real life since April. That’s when I also mishandled the reverts and made some heated comments that don’t reflect how I normally act. Semi-active would probably be a better banner to put on my talk page for now, but I won't leave completely or anything like that. Same goes back to you, though. Don't let whatever is going on right now scare you away from editing things you like.

Anyway, I think it's best to keep the situation in the project discussion for now. The reverts / edit warring probably won’t stop unless this gets clarified. I still don’t understand why details like publisher info are so controversial to others, but I’m confident a solution will be reached on the project board. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop demon hunters soundtrack

Hey I made the soundtrack credit edits you undid—I worked on the album. The writer/producer credits in the edit you undid were correct. If IMDB isn’t reliable, you can check Apple Music or anywhere the songs are credited. Nowhere is it divided lyrics and music the way it’s listed now. Can you reinstate? Thanks! 2603:3027:102:5C00:C977:644E:8B64:F35F (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything at MOS:FILMMUSIC or Template:Track listing that indicates the format is incorrect. Looking at this PR piece by Netflix, the credits of the original songs match what is in the article. If you have any reliable sources that the credits are incorrect, please respond over at Talk:KPop Demon Hunters#Soundtrack credits. Additionally, if your IP keeps changing, it'll be easier to ping you directly if you WP:REGISTER. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great I put it in KPOP talk! You have to format it like the Trolls soundtrack otherwise it's crediting music and lyrics in a way that isn't accurate. Wikipedia's traditional track listing format doesn't provide for correct crediting so you have to edit/revise it. You can look at spotify credits, apple music credits, anywhere the credits exist it's not credited lyrics and music because that's wrong 2603:3027:102:5C00:81BC:DD9B:B219:2EED (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Age Veilguard

Hi,

I've restored my edit on the page. The RfC conclusion was that "We are left, therefore, with a policy-based argument to include publisher expectations versus editors' opinions that they should be excluded. The former is sound; the latter must be discarded. I therefore find a consensus to include publisher expectations (option E, although the consensus does not extend so far as to entrench the specific wording)". Unfortunately the wording used as an example and then implemented ("Reaching 1.5 million players by year-end 2024, Veilguard outperformed Electronic Arts' previous single-player games but did not meet the publisher's expectations.") is a basic WP:SYNTH violation as while some sources raise that on launch day the game's Steam concurrent player numbers were higher than previous Bioware titles, this does not mean that it sold more than Bioware titles in the first two months of release and therefore "outperformed" EA's previous single-player games. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler: I'm not going to edit war over this but wanted to flag that the RfC just ended in July 2025. Given the contentious history of that article's development (as seen by the multiple, drawn out RfCs), I would suggest starting a new discussion on the talk page rather than asserting that this is 100% a SYNTH issue especially because no one else brought up that concern about option E during the RfC. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody even brought up that the two sources used to support the claim both state it wasn't even the highest player total. Both sources say it was behind The Sims on top of that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please start a discussion at Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard. My talk page isn't going to be the venue to determine if your concerns are valid and what the consensus should be. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sariel Xilo it's been placed there now. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Style guide

I replied to you on my Talk page in regards to those tables on the Absolute DC pages - but to add to it here. The date MOS you linked to actually backs up what I did.

It says date shortening should be used "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful" - and then specifies "For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc." See here. It's all on the style guide to which you linked.

Shortening dates for tables is part of the Wiki style guide. Tables look a lot better like that because wide columns become problematic, depending on the platform being used. Peterspeterson (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on your talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awards tables

I reverted your edit on G. Willow Wilson and wanted to explain my reasoning. A few other users and I have been working on awards tables for SFF authors. I’ve tried to get a discussion going about standardized formats, but no one had wanted to add anything yet. See here. Please feel free to jump in if you would like to have a discussion there!

Generally, we have been using the “shortlist” template and manually changing the wording to match the awards. The rationale is that an awards shortlist, list of finalists, and list of nominees generally represent similar ideas. This assists with readability. In contrast, a longlist can be a different color because it is a “lesser” level of award than reaching a shortlist. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelangelo1992: I disagree. Nomination & finalist are slightly different; it essentially boils down to if the award is doing multiple rounds of elimination (thus something ending on a short list). By using the same color, you're adding weight that nomination is the equivalent to shortlist. Also, nomination has its own template so we should use it. Unless you establish consensus that the template should not be used, I think we fall under "retain style" so I'm going to revert. Thanks for leaving an explanation. Sariel Xilo (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smith related

Hopefully this is all resolved. Collapsing given the length, Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Dear Sariel Xilo, I have respect for your length of time editing Wikipedia. I also know that you have ties to the RPG scene. Although I am not part of that world, I understand that Smith is a decisive figure within it. I believe you should divulge your association with that scene. Slacker13 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Slacker13: I don't have a conflict of interest or any professional ties to the industry that require disclosure. Just because I primarily edit "geeky" topics (tabletop & video games, comics, TV/film, etc) is not a reason to cast aspersions or bring this up at my talk page after making an entire discussion about this at the article's talk. Given the WP:HOUNDING, I'm asking you to not contact me on my talk page unless it is to use a template to notify me of a noticeboard discussion (per WP:USERTALKSTOP). Everything about Smith can be discussed at the article's talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] AN/I Thread FYI I mentioned you in the AN/I thread about Slacker13. Here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! I got pinged so I'm in my sandbox putting diffs together. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Arbitration You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tbanned by parties involved in the underlying dispute. and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, Slacker13 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Yikes. I'm not going to get involved in that but it looks like a boomerang that's going to come back around and hit twice. BOZ (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Mostly a note (in case the link is needed in the future) - request was declined. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Request for Arbitration declined This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] ArbCom Defendant Club Congratulations. You are now a member of the club of editors who have been named as parties in frivolous or vexatious cases filed with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] "LLM or similar tools" Hello. While I don't use AIs for text generation (or other uses, if I can possibly avoid it), I understand how specific formatting can look similar to how AIs format text. Since the comment in question at the Zak Smith Talk page is marked as "do not edit" and cannot be commented upon, and you did the collapsing, I suppose it would be better to ask my question at your Talk page directly - which is why I'm here. So: Would you find it appropriate if I rephrased my comment in a different format, and posted it at the same Talk page? Thanks in advance. White Spider Shadow (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @White Spider Shadow: Broadly, I think that is fine; I will flag that an admin suggested WP:COAL early on which is good advice & there are serious WP:BLUDGEONING throughout the RfC with so many editors feeling the need to respond to every !vote/comment. I would suggest starting a subsection in the RfC's discussion section. The survey section is such a mess to parse because most of the discussion is occuring there even though the RfC was setup with a discussion section. Collapsing off-topic or LLM comments is meant to help it be more readable. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Understood, thank you. Sadly, it really is a mess. White Spider Shadow (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Rearrangement of Zak Smith RFC Hi there! I hope you're having a nice day! Regarding the recent rearrangement of the RFC above - my comments in reply to "Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)" got folded into a collapsed section you made called "Extended discussion in survey section". When I posted that comment for discussion, there was no separate section for discussion/survey for me to post into, so it was in the correct location at the time. It is only after your rearrangement that it appears misplaced. Could you please move it into the recently created "discussion" section, since that's what it is, instead of folding it into the collapsed section? It's also a single comment with no replies, and thus I do not believe it is correct to call it an "extended discussion". The other comments in that section contain a lot of back-and-forth; mine does not. Thank you much! Winstonbury (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @LokiTheLiar: collapsed the section. It looks like your comment was one of the ones that triggered the discussion so it should stay grouped together for context. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hi, thanks for responding so promptly! All the replies come directly from "Itstheschist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)", and related to that comment's content, which is "Wikipedia requires that reliable sources are independent".[reply] None of the following comments address anything I said in mine. I don't think the extended discussion is related to my comment, which no-one replied to or addressed directly or indirectly. Winstonbury (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Oh, sorry - there are two comments with replies - the one above and another by White Spider Shadow (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC) that has been collapsed as LLM.[reply] In any case, none of the discussion therein replies to, or addresses, my comment. They're all about LLMs and sources which do not relate to my comment at all. Regardless - if it's discussion it should be moved into the discussion section, not just collapsed due to a recategorization of a section of text. Winstonbury (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Splitting into EC/non-EC Hello. I noticed that the comments regarding the RfC at Talk:Zak Smith (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) are split into EC and non-EC - I believe that you split them after ECP was applied to the Talk page. However, the page was returned to its current semi-protected state. Does it make sense to keep the comments split when the page is not under ECP? It's currently under ECP, I'll return to this question after it's lifted, if it will be relevant. White Spider Shadow (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Request for arbitration You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Requesting arbitration over serious issues in the Zak Smith RFC and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, White Spider Shadow (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] I hope the moves I made on the talk page archives made sense. You've got a whole lot of comments from years ago, and comparatively less on the second archive from the last couple of months, even after I moved 100k of recent text there. :D While technically it is all related, the more recent stuff is all deeply interconnected so it made sense to be able to review it all together. BOZ (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] It is a mess, yeah. Thank you for the help. White Spider Shadow (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Motion enacted in lieu of a case The Arbitration Committee has enacted a motion in lieu of a full case: The topic of Zak Smith is placed under the extended-confirmed restriction. This restriction is set to lapse automatically one year after the enactment of this motion. If an editor believes this restriction should be extended, they may request the Committee consider an extension by posting an amendment request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment in the final month of the restriction's timeframe. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Zak Smith Request for arbitration You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zak Smith 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Xkeylimepie (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply] And declined. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hey Sariel, been a while. I’m a bit busy right now so can’t participate at the moment but, in case you have a little more time, I wanted to flag this SPI up to you – if you don’t get around to it, all good (I will later this week) but I think someone should mention the meatpuppet accusations from ANI a few months back. I’m on mobile so it’s hard for me to check if Symphony Regalia had any connection to the VG RFCs. – ImaginesTigers 10:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that SPI (this is the only one I knew of because of the retaliatory filing) or the potentially connected editor. Offhand I don't recall them in those RfCs & from a quick scan of that link, it looks like Symphony Regalia was topic banned from a few connected aspects before the wave of RfCs occurred so they might have just stayed well away to avoid stumbling into their topic banned areas. But I also don't have the bandwidth to wade into this (see recent notifications on my talk). Sorry I can't be of more help! Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: I'm not getting involved but that SPI you flagged last month has jumped over to AN/I (in case that noticeboard isn't on your watchlist). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Sariel Xilo! I'm glad that you are joining the June 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Demiplane logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Sariel Xilo for collecting more than 23.0 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's JUN25 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 9,500 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer Alt ■ 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sariel Xilo, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. :) BOZ (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've been trying to do more drives as a push to edit outside my usual wheelhouse so I thought the September new page backlog drive would be a good way to figure out if this is an area I want to spend time in more long term. Sariel Xilo (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit on Jeff the Land Shark

Hello, Sariel Xilo. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Jeff the Land Shark at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! 🫎 moose 💬 00:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your patroller right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gizmodo, 2025 logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gizmodo, 2025 logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Magic: The Gathering

Hi! I was wondering if you are still interested in WikiProject M:TG. Please respond to this within a week if you are still interested in helping out. If you do not respond within a week you will be classified as inactive on the WikiProject member list. Thanks! Snuggle 🖤 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Sariel Xilo for accumulating at least 25 points the September 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles reviewed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Utopes (talk / cont) 03:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Animation Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on KPop Demon Hunters. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdjp1: Thanks for the barnstar! And thanks for doing all that reference clean up work at the article! Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Talon, variant cover of Wolverine 35 (2023).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Talon, variant cover of Wolverine 35 (2023).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November unreferenced articles backlog drive

Hey there! :) In case you are looking for some articles to add sources to for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2025, for games articles that you want to look for sources for, you could see if there is something at the RPG or B&TG project pages.

I will try to find some time to see if there are more games articles that are unsourced but not tagged as such.

If you want an additional challenge, I could also look for unsourced articles that were redirected, and restore them so that they can count towards the drive!

Best of luck and best wishes, and thank you for doing what you can. :) BOZ (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that is more than enough, but if you want me to look for more unsourced RPG and tabletop games articles then I would be happy to do so. BOZ (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list! Just came back from a break so I'm hoping to dive into the drive later this week. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) BOZ (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Sariel Xilo! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TAIV

You might want to request TAIV – it would be helpful in situations like the one you reported at RfPP. We're not allowed to grant it without a request, or I would've just given it to you on the spot. Toadspike [Talk] 16:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: I was on the fence about needing it before the rollout so thank you for recommending it! Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, Sariel Xilo. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Sariel Xilo, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop Demon Hunters cites in lede

Moved to Talk:KPop Demon Hunters § Cites in lead

 – Better venue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Sariel Xilo: I've just noticed your edit about the genre of the film citations. Wikipedia policy for lede usually means trying to keep cites out of the lede as much as possible. Are you planning to take those cites out of the lede now that they are in the main body of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause and Jamie Eilat: I was looking at the infobox options because typically it has a genre option where you can also stick the citations but I'm not seeing that as an option in Template:Infobox film. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The genre parameter is specific to Infobox television template not film template. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most recent films are keeping genre in the lede and the main body, without listing genre in the Infobox; that sounds correct to me. The inclusion of the citations at the top of the current lede for Hunters looks a little top-heavy to me, and not needed now since its already covered in the main body. Any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy is to keep redundant citations out of the lead, but it also states that "the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article". It isn't fully uncommon for film articles to have genre &/or nationality being cited in the lead. There isn't any good reason to try to jam the mention of the genre into the release section (where it honestly doesn't quite belong) just for the purpose of geting the few non-redundant citations out of the lead. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Sariel; GA review is in process now; you might take a look and start in if it looks interesting. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sariel; GA nomination seemed to go through fairly well and it seems time to start the process for the next promotion, possibly to make the nomination on Nov 22 or Nov 23. Are you interested being part of the co-nomination for the next promotion of the article at this time? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]