User talk:Daisy Blue

Why can't people know that Xbox first party games are going Game Pass. I get it, it's not a platform (debatable as Game Pass through cloud streaming is on multiple devices.), but it's a major push for Xbox and it's a core feature of Xbox as a platform. You get these games into Game Pass. I understand if you or anyone else wants to do the games not owned by Xbox as they go in and out of service. But once first party Xbox games go into Game Pass they tend not to come out, so it's a one and done. Thats like saying the next first party game from Netflix isn't going into their own subscription service. Or the next PlayStation game is or is not an exclusive. People diverse to know about a feature of Xbox as a platform. RCPolygons (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, when editing Wikipedia, I try to do it through the lens of the guidelines (even when I do not agree or think it's the most viable approach). I was not involved in the discussions surrounding the game subscription guidelines, so I cannot comment on how or why they came to be, but the proper path to challenging them would be through the surrounding pages like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Video games or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games rather than making individual edits in spite of the guidelines.

Another approach is contributing that information through a different means. There are other wikis and resources that get a lot of traction and allow people to indicate that a game is available on Game Pass. Daisy Blue (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

So basically, a main feature of Xbox as a platform can't be talked about due to it conflicting with the guidelines as they don't see subscription services as not "platforms" in gaming. RCPolygons (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia the go-to place for people wishing to discover whether a game is on Game Pass though? We could probably discuss and ponder, but none of our personal conclusions would influence the guidelines unless we make a point on those pages and see if the community agrees. Daisy Blue (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not the direct way in finding out on Game Pass, but people do come and visit Wikipedia to find correct information and if a first party Xbox game is in game pass or coming to game pass, that should be mentioned. If you don't own an Xbox or don't play on PC, people who see this game out of a friend mentioning or a twitter post, they could look up the game here and then find out that the game is on game pass could click the link and find out what game pass is. That can help that person be more informed about the game itself and the platform. Its giving people the most information as possible. RCPolygons (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Daisy Blue, I thought I'd message you here, as we first need to figure out our personal dynamic before tackling the actual content dispute. I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you—and I'm genuinely glad you brought the issue up—but it's going to be difficult if you insist on being snarky and condescending. If you're able to take a more collegial approach to our disagreement, then let's definitely figure out what's best to do in this case.
As far as I can tell, I've only reverted you once, so why do you say "undoing my additions", as if this has happened before?
As a side point, we aren't discussing the band's previous names, so please make sure you keep your examples relevant to the topic we are discussing. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't mean to come across that way or put you off, though I was definitely frustrated with your undoing. As we learn from being on a wiki, undoing takes just a few clicks, whereas researching or writing takes a lot longer. Then it takes even more of our time to have to explain ourselves, which becomes particularly taxing when the reason for undoing is not apparently rooted in the wiki guidelines or best practices (for the reasons I described on the talk page). As such, I think we should be absolutely convinced that something has no place on Wikipedia based on its guidelines before we take the drastic step of undoing.

As for why I said something to the effect of "you keep undoing my additions", that was based on this prior edit (that also happened to be unexplained as far as the removed part). I feel my examples covered both of these subjects. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

For the former name parts, we could just cross them out, on the page or in our minds, and the examples would still stand. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Daisy Blue, the part you modified on the Hardkiss talk page isn't that which reads as snarky, but whatever, it's all good now. As for this edit, I'm not sure what you're pointing to, but again, we can leave it, unless you wish to revisit it. Let's see if we can figure out what to do about the name issue on the Hardkiss talk page. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I meant your change from

As Sanina and Bebko looked for a more memorable name for the band, they asked their friends to select from three possible names, including The Hardkiss and Planeta poni. Having listened to a demo of the band, the friends pointed out that the music had something sweet like a kiss, and something hard in the arrangement."

to

With the help of friends, Sanina and Bebko selected the name the Hardkiss for their band.

My version went into the name origin and the name(s) considered by the band, as with those Featured article examples on the talk page. The wording may not be great all around, but the practices seen in the Featured articles almost call for including that information. As a side note regarding the article as a whole, based on those articles, I don't think "less is more" is the right approach. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was pretty badly written, that's why I rewrote it.

By the way, please don't assume that en editor you are interacting with has added your talk page to their watchlist and is therefore notified when you make a comment; it's best policy (and courtesy) to tag the user you are addressing. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, that's fair, though could you link the policy? Help:Talk pages#How to use it says "Ping editors if you need to" (emphasis mine). Daisy Blue (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What policy? About tagging an editor you are addressing? Does there need to be a policy that says "if you want another editor to know that you're addressing them on your talk page, make sure they are informed, as they may not have added your talk page to their watchlist? That just strikes me as common sense, and besides, I'm pretty sure that's what admins do, and they would know, right? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, could you update me on whether you are still planning to comment on the article talk page or would you rather re-add the information? Another option I'm considering is taking the issue to a Music-related wiki project for more input if we cannot resolve the dispute on our own. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I brought the discussion here instead of commenting there, as it seemed to be more a case of our disagreement ("Revirvlkodlaku, please stop undoing my additions...") than an impartial discussion of content. Would you like to have two concurrent discussions on the same topic? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, though it's just us at the moment, I think it's important that the arguments, if any, and the outcome are visible on the article talk page so that we could refer to that if the issue arises again in the future. Sometimes there are also lurking editors who would read the talk page, then boldly edit the main article if they feel persuaded by the talk or feel the right course of action is clear already. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, so I'll let you remove the "Revirvlkodlaku, please stop undoing my additions...", which doesn't belong on an article talk page, and ideally, examples of older band names from the list of examples you provided (since that is not relevant to the present issue), and we'll go from there, ok? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, there has to be some context though, right? It's not that I just proposed something new, but rather I made a change, it was undone, then I made a similar change and justified the inclusion of the content, but that was undone as well. I could reword, but the best alternative I can think of would look more like a report on the edit chronology (like this), and it still has to include your name so that any observer doesn't get the impression that it's me challenging the edits of more than one user.

Regarding the former names parts, I removed those just now. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I can go ahead and reword the talk page discussion in a neutral manner. Would you be amenable to that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, I would not mind, as long as it's faithful to the substance and the full context. My main point with the first sentence relates to something I learned here on Wikipedia years ago: we must go by the common standard of the guidelines and other materials produced by community consensus rather than our personal sense of right or wrong. I made the same point in the other exchange on this talk page, just above, though it was worded differently and it was not pointed. I feel the latter was unavoidable in this case though, given that your summary related to your personal perception rather than being anchored to the project guidelines for me to review (and accept if they justify the edit). Daisy Blue (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I've just updated it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, thanks! Looks good, though I don't believe it's a good practice to point at just any article as an example of how something should be done in another. There might even be guidelines or essays against that, though I don't have them on hand. The crucial difference here is that the articles I use as examples are all Featured, all thoroughly reviewed and selected via community consensus as the very best of Wikipedia, but this detail is now omitted. I also wouldn't have removed the Godsmack example that relates to the band name origin, as that separate but adjacent subject is still on the table, though it's of less importance to me because it's not as frequently featured in the interviews I'm aware of, and because I'm not too happy with the wording I went for, as discussed. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Found an essay that says pretty much the same thing as I did, including the part on Featured articles. Daisy Blue (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Daisy Blue, on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music forum, you implied that the band's search for a name is supported by multiple sources, but this doesn't seem to be the case with the Hardkiss. I've just removed one source that mentions none of the claims which it was purported to attest, and the only other (potential) source I'm aware of is the youtube video you posted previously, which I haven't watched. I just don't think there's very much to go on here, unless there are other sources that you haven't shared yet. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku, please watch the YouTube video. You can hear the names in English even if you don't speak Ukrainian. The JetSetter source you removed also fully supports what it is used for. I'll provide the page and where to find the exact quotes in my edit. Another source on Planet Pony I haven't shared but had among my notes for the article is this, but I think two are sufficient. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a typo in the video link though. The time code doesn't work because it's missing an s. Here's the proper link. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Why did you hide Stalker 2 review scores? They are in the reception page and do support the article. Or do I have to write, for example, about IGN in the article itself (stuff like "IGN praised that but criticized that") and only then add their review to the list? I don't understand. Dabmasterars (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Dabmasterars. Yes, your understanding is correct. As stated in the template documentation, which is also referenced in MOS:VGREC, "the reviews table supports the text". Daisy Blue (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed the OR maintenance box on the Epic Games v. Apple and Epic Games v. Google cases. Both articles deal with the entirety of the lawsuits (including why they were filed), not just the trial, so covering events that led up to the actual trial is fully within the scope of the topic. In legal areas in the first place, if you look at coverage of major cases like those at the Supreme Court, you usually are not going to see a complete picture by only looking at those that cover the trial only, those sources that do reference previous elements of the case, which can be expanded on by earlier sources, so this approach is completely within the scope of NOR. Masem (t) 13:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Masem, could you point to any guidelines that support exemptions to the basics of WP:OR? Allowing editors to pick and choose which pre-trial and pre-lawsuit articles that have nothing to do with the legal case are of relevance is obvious original research to me. Back in 2020, you asked a similar question about the Background section of a different article, and the only reply was to the effect that it's not an exception.

The OR is so glaring at times that there is an article from 2017, which is three years before the lawsuit, and it does not even mention Apple or Google, let alone any legal action against them. Daisy Blue (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, new to Wikipedia and not a confirmed user yet so thought I would reach out to undue the changes made by another user. I saw you were the most recent editor on the page so thought I’d reach out to you.

Are you able to change the infobox image from

to

My reasoning is that this image is more recognisable due to it being used so greatly including on the Ukrainian language Wikipedia site and multiple sources and therefore holds more encyclopaedic value. See below sources for examples: TVPWorld, Novaya Gazeta, New York Post, Kyiv Post, The Sun, Fox News. I also think it is more relevant to the article given what he is notable for, namely the incursions into Russia in 2023 and the press conferences to western media after these incursions as seen here in the BBC Blitgern (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not realise I could put a request through on the article page itself requesting an edit be done on my behalf. I have raised it on the article talk page. Blitgern (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Personally, I find the current one to be better simply because it's a frontal view of the face and there is no hat. Seems more neutral. I probably wouldn't revert either version though, unless there had been someone making a good argument and someone else undoing for no reason. Daisy Blue (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Additionally, the following restriction(s) apply to this topic area: Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Rosguill, looking at WP:RUSUKR, the only remedies I see are to do with extended-confirmed protection, and I'm extended confirmed. Is there anything more I need to know? Daisy Blue (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Just that it is a designated contentious topic, which means that admins are encouraged to intervene more quickly in the event of disruption, and that you can report misconduct in the topic area to WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, the former being a more streamlined process that is usually more efficient and to the point than the free for all that ANI can sometimes be. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Rosguill. Regarding my report on Turbo, I deliberately avoided ANI and went to AN, as the former seems to be reserved for issues requiring immediate intervention, while the issue seems to be more systemic. Should I move the report to AE or was your advice more general? Daisy Blue (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

My advice was general, and moving a behavioral dispute report is usually more trouble than it’s worth (although generally speaking AN is not the place for reports about disruptive behavior: ANI is for disruptive behavior, AE is for disruptive behavior in a CT, and AN is for other topics related primarily of interest to admins or otherwise requiring action from them). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill Makes sense! This being on my talk page should help me remember. Now that there are replies in the AN thread though, what should I do about it? Daisy Blue (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Since there's other participants, I would just let it run to its normal conclusion at AN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for doing good work! I quickly looked at your AN post. Indeed, such complaints should be brought to WP:AE if at all. That is what Turbo recently tried himself, without much effect. I am busy at work right now, and could not analyze your AN report very carefully. Looking at something like this takes a lot of time. So, I can not say if there are any serious grounds for an AE complaint in this case. But in any event, I am not going to appear anywhere close to WP:AE for the reasons you can probably guess about. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, as seen just above, it seems it's too late for AE now, but if the issue lands on AE, I may include the same diffs as seen on AN. There is at least one other issue I remember from the interactions, but I'd probably reserve that unless there would be other evidence of similar behavior I could add to. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. Here is how this looks from my perspective. I made a comment on a talk page that seemed logical but would be difficult to support by refs (someone who fight at war with fascists can be reasonably viewed as an antifascist). This resulted in someone filing an ANI complaint about me and making some offensive and incorrect claims. I was going just to ignore this nonsense, but one of the admins made a comment in the beginning of the thread saying basically that I need to be banned, topic banned or whatever. Obviously, my involvement in the project is very much limited. My very best wishes (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I think we need to stick to sources rather than opinions, no matter how potentially valid, whether that's you saying he's an antifascist or Turbo saying "How about him being a fucking neo-nazi. lmao" in a thread that's not about whether Kapustin is a neo-Nazi. People often treat Wikipedia as a means of expressing their views or even as a form of activism, but that doesn't work here, nor is it in line with the guidelines. I'd recommend utilizing other venues for that. Daisy Blue (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Making "WP:OR" arguments on talk pages is a bad idea, although this is not forbidden by the policy (it says: "this policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources"). Here is one of such examples: . Making changes in the main space can be more problematic. Here is an example of an edit that could be valid by itself, but certainly not with the justification provided in the edit summary. Could such edits be a ground for any sanctions on WP:AE? I doubt, but I am not an admin. As about WP:NPA issues, they usually need to be brought to an appropriate noticeboard either by the user who was the target of the offense or by uninvolved administrator. This did not happen. There is also an issue of WP:BATTLE by the user, but I do not know if it rises to the level requiring any action. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I agree to the extent that I'm more concerned with opinions spilling onto the main space, and you have barely edited the Kapustin article. That second diff link to an edit by Turbo looks very bad. If there's more like it, I'd wonder if there has been a warning from an administrator and if Turbo has made changes to how they edit. Daisy Blue (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree this edit looks bad with such edit summary because the user is familiar with the subject and the supporting references were provided. To compare, I think that such edit, for example, was justified by the edit summary, even though it was corrected by other users soon after. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course the actual issue here is Russian propaganda claiming their war of aggression was a "special operation" against the Ukrainian neo-Nazi (and many Russians honestly believe it). Yes, they do have some neo-Nazi, just as any other country. But the bright line here are the wars of aggression against their neighbors, which Russia started doing in 2006. Hence, I think the issues about the alleged Ukrainian neo-Nazi fighting against Russia should be presented very carefully in WP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes Do you know if there is any precedent or guideline on making a distinction between recent and older reports when labeling a person, considering that people's views evolve over time? Kapustin still gets labeled a neo-Nazi, but there may be less of that across the reliable sources now, though I have not yet focused on the dates of the sources I listed on Talk to know one way or another. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

To comply with our BLP policy, I would avoid using any labels (like "leftist", "far-right" or whatever) in the first phrase of BLP pages, unless person is notable specifically for being "leftist", neo-Nazi or whatever. Is the subject famous for being "neo-Nazi" or is he famous for being a commander of the military unit? If the latter, one might say about his personal views somewhere in the lead, but not in the first phrase defining what he is notable/known for. Just checked an example, Trofim Lysenko. Oh no, I think this is wrong. He not known for being a scientist. He is known for being a pseudoscientist and a destroyer of science. first ref says " Lysenko failed to become a real scientist, but greatly succeeded in exposing of the “bourgeois enemies of the people.” My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As about "making a distinction between recent and older reports" - yes, sure. One of such examples was renaming of Kiev to Kyiv. If it were a scientific subject, then the newest studies could disprove the older ones, etc. The description of a person can also change. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

So, while editing pages like that one, I am not placing any labels to the lead, which could be "pro-Russian", "anti-Ukrainian" or at least "controversial" in this case. All such labels can be sourced, but it goes against my taste and understanding of the BLP policy. Some other people just go through multiple pages to include labels everywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I would rather not edit this page for now because it has enough attention. Once, I saw a YouTube video with the subject, and he seemed unremarkable, even boring, and not an ideologist of anything. As about Neo-Nazi, etc., I would put it in more general and neutral terms as Xenophobia, and we have a lot of this in the USA, promoted and institutionalized by the Trump administration. I spoke with many Russians across the entire political spectrum... One guy said about the war: "This is great! We have killed a million of Ukrainian fascists and will kill another million." (he was a very nice person when I knew him many years ago). Another guy, who was not a Ukrainian but Russian by culture, refused to speak in Russian, even though his English was very poor. But I think this is a xenophobia too, just on another part of the spectrum... The problem is never the culture, but the lack of one. Happy editing! My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

At the moment it feels like there's a chilling effect, unless the editors are just anticipating a decision on AN. Either way, it may always help to take some time off and shift focus. Wikipedia can be very taxing when it comes to disagreements. Daisy Blue (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, based on his WP:AN statement, Turbo will be back and will be doing the same. Unfortunately, he refuses to talk and instead of talking files complaints in a very fast succession (one AE and 2 ANI already). I would probably just avoid him, even though I was able to collaborate positively with a number of contributors who were later site banned. Fortunately, I am busy at work right now and do not care too much what is happening around here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

He is already back. As about the "bloodlust", well, what had happened? I made two small changes on page Kapustin. Turbo reverted them both. I did not revert his edits back. He started a discussion. I replied. He did not like my comment that people who fight against fascists can be reasonably viewed as antifascists. And I am not entirely wrong. That was indeed the case for the Resistance during World War II. In any case, such comment is not "pro-Nazi", but the opposite. But in response, Turbo distorted what I said and filed two ANI complaints against me. This is probably the worst WP:BATTLE I have seen in the project because it was manufactured by Turbo from nothing. But maybe he misunderstood? I do not think so, but in any case, this needed to be clarified at the talk, not to be filed twice to ANI. That was indeed disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)