User talk:TheMysteriousShadeheart

Double spaces

Fyi, you don't need to correct excess spaces because "the system" does it automatically. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... ... ...It does? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RM my inadvertent hard return 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if I start a new line with a space, "the system" renders it in Courier. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I see. Thank you for the clarification~! TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

I see that nobody welcomed you, so here comes the big band serenade: --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TheMysteriousShadeheart!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Thank you - you are too kind!!! ^^ Always a great referential point to have on hand, isn't it~? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I fixed some code so the border actually ends here like it's supposed to. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hadn't been sure how to fix it myself. Greatly appreciated... and thanks again for taking off the vandalism from my talk page! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your effort in helping keep cruft out of Wikipedia article while continuing to stay civil when faced with those who think it must stay. You seem really passionate about helping keep cruft away and I applaud your effort. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tend to not read huge chunks of writing just because I have a relatively short attention span, but always try and skim through it and highlight any points I feel I should comment on. Hence why my responses tend to be shorter (that and I don't usually have all that much to say) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - thank you very much! I suppose it's worth helping out even when no one else is willing to step up; besides, it's nice to be nice! I thank you as well for your diligence and wonderful help. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Truly! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you need help with anything feel free to ask me and I'll do my best to help. I greatly appreciate your messages showing your gratitude for other editors and their efforts. Work on Wikipedia is often thankless as you've said (heck there's an entire essay regarding it, WP:THANKLESS) but that little bit of positivity and gratitude towards others can go a long way to helping out the project. I'd say you'd be pretty good at participating in the Kindness campaign Wikiproject which is all about the positivity. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again - I believe I'll check out the campaign. Hope to see you around; I'm always here if you need me! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is completely random but, based on your username, are you a fan of the Wings of Fire series of books? I'm simply curious due to your investment into that minor little dispute. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random is welcome - I greatly appreciate your curiosity, actually. I joined in the dispute since it seemed the right thing to do - especially if no one else was going to, I'd rather not have the vandalism go unnoticed especially I am fully capable of stepping in - regardless of what the subject is. It just so happens that in this case I'm more well-versed with the subject that was at hand than anyone else around, more or less.

The short answer to your question: yes, I'm far more of a FanWing than at least 99.9% of those who claim to be. I actually happen to have a remarkable "reputation" among fans of the series, in a very peculiar, exciting way - one I'd rather not discuss publicly. But believe me, if you/you've ever attended an event you'd/you'll know in an instant. ...I know (and am) far more than I'm letting on - but, er, let's just leave it at that. Mwa. Ha. Ha. (And no, I'm not conflict-of-interest and am not secretly Tui or anyone who personally knows her.)

(Interestingly enough, I've used the name/username "Shadeheart" and this particular variation, "TheMysteriousShadeheart" for longer than Wings of Fire has been in existence. Truth be told, it has no connection with the series.) TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, that's quite interesting. Thanks for the response! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

―Indefinite Hiatus―

I, TheMysteriousShadeheart, hereby wish to announce the commencement of my indefinite hiatus from Wikipedia. Please do note that this hiatus is by no means permanent; please also note that I will nevertheless peridoically check this talk page for the sake of ensuring that no questions, should there be any, are left unanswered. My deepest gratitude to all those who ceaselessly continue day-in and day-out to try and ensure this wonderful encyclopedic project can be the best that it can be - trust me, there are countless people out there who truly appreciate your seemingly unnoticed efforts. I appreciate it, for one. And it has truly been a joy to play a part in helping you put together these contributions to the bigger picture of Wikipedia.

While I may peridoically appear (and then immediately disappear again) for the sake of reverting vandalism/inaccuracies from the occasional page (ex. I expect to continually patrol Tui T. Sutherland and Wings of Fire (novel series), as both of those pages are occasionally targeted by sockpuppets/vandals). This does not in any way indicate that I am returning to regulated editing; rather, that I will occasionally perform my pre-existing duty of preventing those ever-common small problems from popping up from time to time.

Everyone, I wish you all the best in all your future endeavors - thanks for all your hard work, and happy editing! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. One final note before my farewell: should anyone leave a talk page message during my absence and I fail to respond within a week or two, please accept my apologies (and please don't assume I'm dead!). To remain diligent at all times may not necessarily be possible, thus I most humbly request your patience should I not be as immediate as I have been in the past. (Ultimately I may not reply at all, in which case you are fully welcome to assume that I am dead.) Thus I bid you farewell at last: the time has come for me to mysteriously disappear into the shadows. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Titanic (1997 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there - thanks for writing!

~ I am already quite familiar with WP:CITE and WP:PLOTSOURCE, though I didn't realize the extent to which it was required on feature film articles in particular. My apologies for the error - shall take greater precaution concerning its implementation in the future.

~ Concerning the reverted edit itself, I have reinstalled part of said edit - that to do with the casting of Helga Dahl - with sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. As one who has done work with dead, improperly sourced and/or unarchived citations in my editing contributions history, the uncited edit in question was an oversight on my part, though I must say I'm not entirely sure what your page history edit summary meant, per "not ultimately a principal role". The characters of Cora Cartmell, Ida and Isidor Strauss all feature minimally in the finished product, yet feature on the "fictional characters" and "historical characters" sections respectively (the former section is not a "main cast" section, and none of the roles are considered cameos). As such, the minor fictional characters Helga Dahl and Trudy Bolt (whom my edit has added to the appropriate section of the cast listing section) and their given actors belong under the section of the same name. (By comparison, mentioning the actress who portrays Rhoda Abbott would be considered a cameo (though that instance in and of itself likely fails notability).) Should you wish to request an additional opinion, I'd be happy to (1) request a disupte settler or (2) take this up with other editors on the talk page in order to reach consensus. Per WP:FANCRUFT, the incorporation of second-billing actors on a major feature film's article does not constitute any sort of violation of a beyond-the-work-in-question requirement (ex. the criteria fulfills WP:NOTABLE), and as such the edit I made shouldn't necessarily have been outright reverted rather than cleaned up/marked with a "citation needed" note.

Please let me know if you have any further questions, comments or concerns; I offer my apologies if I am not quick to respond (and apologize for not having seen this talk page message until just an hour or so ago). ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing style on the Wings of Fire article

I'm not sure if you or anyone else has noticed, but your writing style is over-the-top. For example, you undid my perfectly-fine edit (per WP:MOS, since you seem to like policies) and replaced it with "Moon-bestowed NightWing powers". Maybe I'm overthinking it but that seems way too fancy and pretentious for an article about a kid's series. I won't contest any of your other changes, but I just have to say that we aren't trying to impress anyone here with fancy words. Some kid reading the article would only get confused. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 19:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @ApteryxRainWing:

You are aware surely that the Manual of Style has multiple sections? (e.g. MOS:NUM)
While I agree that the wording could be better, Shadeheart might also have their reasons for wording the way they do.
Great to see that you're following WP:BRD!

Rusty 🐈 23:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know the MOS is big, but from my previous interactions with Shadeheart, they seem to like policies to back up their claims so I met them where they were. I wish they would explain why they choose to write like a 19th century English poet, because it kind of annoys me. I'm just going to leave their edits alone because we've gone back and forth over the Wings of Fire article so often that it's bordering on an edit war and I don't want to be involved in that. Apteryx!🐉 | Roar with me!!! 🗨🐲 12:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I appreciate the feedback!

~ I don't necessarily like editing policies such as WP:MOS, they're required! I merely attempt to call them to attention to other users (ex. when entering an articles-for-deletion debate, one should use the relevant policies as the backbone for arguing why a given article should stay or get deleted from the encyclopedia).

~ Ask yourself: isn't "moon-bestowed NightWing powers" an articulate communication as to the who, what, when and why of the dragons in question. Without saying more than needs to be said, for general readers, one could see the implicit impact of the moons as well as the powers themselves in the thematic context of the given section. Saying "powers bestowed by the three moon" theoretically works just as well but risks making the sentence run longer than necessary (I considered that phrasing but thought the former option more adequate for that reason). My apologies for any misunderstanding with this; I similarly tried to reduce the ambiguity of the sentence-opening "[t]hrough the NightWing tribe" at the same time, which has been rewritten for greater mellifluosity and inherent consistency.

~ My biggest priority is in following the law of conservation of detail to the best of my ability. While I admit there may be a bit of stylistic dramatic flair, so to speak, in my editing style, I nevertheless aim to convey exactly what I mean in as many words as it may take to do so. It's a matter of quality over quantity - and I aim for (1) objectivity, (2) neutrality, and (3) readability. In that order, too, when one must come before the other. (That being said, I've never come close to violating WP:ELEVAR, nor has my writing style caused any significant problems to date on Wikipedia.) You see, I closely adhere to J. Budziszewski's "How to Be Full and Exact", some quite useful reading-and-writing guidelines that I've applied to my broader writing.

~ Have you investigated the page's long-term editing history? Not just going back to January 2023 (or August 2022 for the Tui T. Sutherland page), when I first edited the page, but when looking at the article's 40,000 to 100,000+ bytes era? I'd like to call to attention that my primary goal was to prevent this page from becoming the mess it once was again. Per WP:ENDURE, I think the page struck a better balance compared to then (after all, the page hasn't been nominated for deletion since!). I haven't outright reverted any of your edits; rather, I've tried to tie up loose ends and help get contributions from all users up to the site's standards. Additionally, I wouldn't consider our editing of the page to resemble an edit war as (1) we have merely disputed minor peculiarities, (2) neither of us have reverted the other, and (3) both parties have been fully civil in WP:CYCLE.

Take your latest edit as an example. You adequately explain animus magic, but there's a conciseness to the explanation which lacks the out-of-universe importance pertaining too what you intend to convey. It should be noted that (1) animus magic exists in the dragon world, (2) that there is significant moral effect on the lives of animus dragons, and (3) that animus magic is thought to come at the cost of one's soul. However, you (4) do not call attention to the speculative nature about the effects of animus magic on a dragon's soul, and, therefore, some of what you have written may be considered fancruft. Out-of-universe importance (WP:NOTE) again is what we have to keep in mind. As your edit (1) makes tangible claims as to what animus magic does to a dragon, (2) you wrote more than would hold immediate encyclopedic relevance for non-series readers (ex. "driven into a homicidal rage" when readers only have a single case study, Albatross, to go off of), and (3) does not cite what, where, when or why "it is also proposed" as you say it is in Darkness of Dragons. I (or another user) would thus attempt to clean up your edit - though, should one of us make a mistake, then that mistake would need to be cleaned up. It's one big balancing act, but, per WP:PI, there's nothing wrong with testing the waters and figuring out how to level an article's content without subjugating it to fancruft.

...As above, it's one huge editing cycle we're all part of. Just as each of our contributions are to pages other have collaborated on before, even our new articles look at existing sources, don't they?

~ You say that "[s]ome kind reading the article would only get confused", yet the technical variation warranted by an article's subject matter determines what is included in an article, not who it is written for. Would you say that the article on methylisothiazolinone woud exclusively be written for biochemists or those who work in a field where awareness of said compound is of significance, or that the children's book Guess How Much I Love You should be written for its generally youthful target audience? WP:AUDIENCE and WP:MTAU go hand in hand with one another; editors should strive to write for as many readers as possible while making our articles as accessible as the subject warrants. We are thus putting WP:BETTER into practice with every effort!

I openly acknowledge that I am a flawed communicator in certain regards, and I actively seek to better my abilities wherever I can - practice makes perfect (or at least closer to perfect), I suppose, and I know I make mistakes here and there. Both of our contributions to the page have been quite helpful, I'd argue, and forthcoming changes are what have been bringing about an already-better page than before. As always, feel free to let me know if you have any further questions, comments or concerns, would like to go over something in greater depth or anything else - though I'd like to apologize if I am slow to respond due to off-Wikipedia obligations. I hope I covered everything! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]