User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Adamstom.97,
I hope you have a great 2024 and hope to see you around when editing!
Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BigLordFlash -- BigLordFlash (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

The article Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings and Talk:Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BigLordFlash -- BigLordFlash (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2024!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Adamstom.97: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

The article Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings for comments about the article, and Talk:Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BigLordFlash -- BigLordFlash (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

On 4 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a bus-chase sequence in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings took more than a year to plan and was revised more than twenty times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,660 views (638.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

With all due respect, I am only reverting one user. The other one meant to remove the name parameter entirely and mistakenly went back to the nowrap version. Learn to read the descriptions. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter why you did it, that many reverts is edit warring. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I was going to stop and go to the talk page if this last one was reverted regardless of whether or not the original user reverted since I was at the end of WP:3RR anyways. We have started a discussion on the talk page.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Punctuation confusion

Hey! Sorry if my last edit in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever troubled you for a bit. I had an automatic curly quote extension turned on and didn't realise until I looked at the bytes changed. Whoops!

Thanks for reverting it back, though :)

Nicole. Oh, she's elegantly clandestine... ✨ 06:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries, it was straightforward to revert :) adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1)

The article Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1) for comments about the article, and Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks (season 1)/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

TFL submission for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

Hi, Adamstom.97. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga) – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been submitted as a candidate to be featured on the Main Page as Today's featured list. The proposed content can be seen here. You are more than welcome to post your thoughts on the nomination. Regards, -- ZooBlazer 09:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your contributions to the wikipedia page and for clarifying any mishaps! Arodroe25 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My FAC

Hey, if you have a little free wiki time soon, would you want to do an image review for my first FAC? The prose and source reviews are pretty well covered, so I'm mostly just looking for an experienced editor to do the image review even though it's probably the easiest part of the FAC review process. No worries if you're too busy or uninterested. -- ZooBlazer 03:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done an FAC before but taking a quick look at your article, it seems like there may be too many images for the size and some of them are a bit tangential. You would probably benefit from cutting down the number in the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed three images. I've only recently done a few reviews, but I think for FAC image reviews it mostly just involves making sure the images make sense to include in the article, make sure there is alt text, check if they are properly licensed, and check the source link (if there is one) to make sure it actually features the image/check if the link still works.

I can ask another editor to do it though if you want. I'm actually surprised it wasn't done already. For most reviews, it's the first thing done because it's the quickest and easiest part. -- ZooBlazer 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, busy couple of days. Looks like someone has sorted you out? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, it's all good now. -- ZooBlazer 16:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

People read that page first and will think "oh hey Blu Del Barrio was a main in all of the seasons they appear", this could cause confusion because the other page says something different. Your logic of it being clutter makes no sense. ACase0000 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Casual readers just looking at the main page aren't going to be as concerned about main vs. recurring as we are. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And you know this how? You don't know that.. –ACase0000 (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I know this because of how often casual readers try to change who is main vs. recurring based on their personal feelings about how much a character appears in the show. Regardless, the key information at this article is that all the listed characters were main cast members at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Phase One DYK ideas

Hey, do you have any ideas of potential hooks for Phase One? All I'm coming up with are options that would fit individual films better as opposed to the Phase. -- ZooBlazer 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You could probably do ones based on these lines:

• Kevin Feige, Arad's second-in-command, realized that unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men, whose film rights were licensed to Sony and Fox, respectively, Marvel still owned the rights to many of the core members of the Avengers. Feige, a self-described "fanboy", envisioned creating a shared universe
• Edgar Wright's pitch for Ant-Man in 2006 helped shape the early films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige said some of the MCU was changed to "accommodate this version" of the film, as that version "helped to dictate what we did with the roster for Avengers the first time. It was a bit of both in terms of his idea for the Ant-Man story influencing the birth of the MCU in the early films leading up to Avengers.

You'll just want to simplify them down to get to the core ideas for both. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Something like these to start?

• ... that self-described "fanboy" Kevin Feige envisioned a shared universe once he realized that Marvel still owned the rights to many core members of the Avengers?
• ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

Not sure where to fit Phase One in for the first one. The second one is closer, but probably a bit of an Easter egg link. -- ZooBlazer 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think those are both pretty good, how about this?

• ... that self-described "fanboy" Kevin Feige envisioned Phase One of a shared universe once he realized that Marvel still owned the rights to many core members of the Avengers?
• ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

- adamstom97 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Those look great. Thanks for the help! -- ZooBlazer 17:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Ended up not using the Feige one as it is basically the same as the one used for Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) -- ZooBlazer 18:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2

The article Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2 for comments about the article, and Talk:Star Trek: Lower Decks season 2/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For some of your recent copy edits to Star Wars articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I've had a bit of extra free time lately haha - adamstom97 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting articles

I don't actually oppose your intent at bold redirecting episode summaries of a show to a page that treats them all encyclopaedically, but you are doing it wrong. If you move the page to draft space and then redirect, this is a backdoor deletion, that would - unchecked - see deletion of the contributer's edit history in those pages when they fall out of draft. The correct way to have done this boldly is simply to redirect the pages. Also, moving to draft boldly is ineligible on pages over 90 days old. These have been around for over a decade. Draftify should not be used. Now you have done this, and considering some or all of these have been to AfD before, the only route open for cleanup is AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I would have just redirected them if there hadn't been previous deletion discussions. I'm not sure what you mean by "backdoor deletion", every article that is moved to draftspace needs the redirect to be updated so it points to the correct mainspace location, otherwise we could be sending readers to the draftspace. I was unaware of this 90 day rule, I have been involved in many discussions that have led to similar articles being sent to the draftspace well after 90 days. Deleted drafts can be restored so I don't see what the issue is that so desperately needs to be cleaned up. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

An AfD discussion can lead to an older article being sent to draft, but it can't be done boldly. If you knew it was ineligible for a bold redirect, I am not sure why you thought it would be eligible for a bold draft and then redirect! As for backdoor deletion, I thought I had explained. The pages contain edit history - all the edits every contributer made. When you bold redirect, no edit history is lost. Someone can revert the redirect and the history will all be available. By sending to draft, you created a new redirect, which you then retargeted. It has no edit history. Look: [1]. The edit history is now all in draft space, but the draft will be deleted if no one edits and publishes the draft. It is a backdoor deletion method that jettisons edit history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

That would only be "backdoor deletion" if the draft was deleted and the edit history permanently lost. But (a) the draft won't be deleted if interested editors work on it and then move it back to the mainspace when it is ready, and (b) the edit history of deleted drafts is not lost permanently and can be restored if requested. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

that would - unchecked - ... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool & Wolverine

Callisto is also in that scene btw 122.171.22.227 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

All information needs to be supported by a reliable source. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One

On 24 April 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Case of piped link

I agree, there was no reason for me to change the case of that piped link. My bad. But why did you change it, before and after me? Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I saw you change the capital letters to lowercase but that wasn't needed for the first one, so I restored that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My first edit was needed to fix the punctuation and to fix the linkage so it wouldn't appear on the report Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The fact that I went a little further than necessary in lowercasing didn't create any problem, so why did you jump in to fix it? My second edit was because I didn't look carefully at what you did; I should have just left it, for which I'm sorry. But then you again jumped in to fix what wasn't in any way broken. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I agree that the case there doesn't matter. So I'm wondering why you're changing it while criticizing me for changing it. Just seems like an odd thing to do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you think it is a problem to fix the formatting. I know my changes had no impact on how the link works, that's not why I did it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem, just wondering why you did it. Your reverts suggested that you thought I had left it in a non-ideal state. What do you mean now by "fix the formatting"? Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for the first letter of the link to be lowercase when it is piped, so I fixed it. Nothing more complicated than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is equally no need for it to be uppercase, so no fix was needed. No big deal. Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Star-Spangled Man

On 7 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Star-Spangled Man, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Star-Spangled Man. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Star-Spangled Man), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Picard Season 3

Incorrect formatting changes in what way? All I did was remove a word. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not all your edit changed: diff - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies. I only meant to remove that word (which is moot, meow). I didn't realize there'd be a cascade effect. I'll try to be more careful in the future. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We need WP:NPOV in notices on WikiProject Middle-earth

Adamstom.97, you wrote "...recently given unnecessary disambiguation..." in your notice. That presupposes what the discussion is about, i.e. it is taking sides, the one thing that is absolutely not ok in notices. I'd be very grateful if you could remove the word "unnecessary" to preserve strict neutrality. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just letting people know that the discussion was happening and giving some basic context. Adding disambiguation to an article title when there are no other articles of the same name is commonly described as "unnecessary disambiguation", that is all I meant by that. It is equivalent to saying "redundant disambiguation". Even if I was trying to sway opinions with my wording, I don't believe there is any requirement for talk page notices to have any specific wording. WP:NPOV applies to articles, not talk pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. However you should never use adjectives, especially those that have a strong pejorative meaning like redundant or unnecessary, in any notice. Notices must be strictly and unequivocally neutral in everybody's eyes, which that one certainly was not. Any editor taking upon themselves to issue a notice is responsible for ensuring they are seen not to be trying to influence or canvass in any way, however subtle. I do hope this is clear as it is enforced by policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Burden

Hey Adamstom.97! I've been seeing your additions to X-Men '97, overall great work. So I'm also somewhat surprised, with your contributions and experience here, that you reverted again the unsourced claim about Karliak also voicing the Hulk. WP:BURDEN means that anyone that it is up to the person who restores previously unsourced information to add a source. A "citation needed" isn't suitable a placeholder. I'm confident you'll find a source quickly, and I won't remove the bit again to make a point, but like you said so yourself (#Deadpool & Wolverine): all information needs to be supported by a reliable source. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The information is currently sourced to the onscreen credits, which does not need an explicit in-line citation because the details that would be in that ref are already provided in the infobox and episode table. This is the same reason that we do not require explicit in-line citations for plot summaries. I have tagged the information with "citation needed" because it is good practice, in my experience, to find third-party sources to support information like cast and cameo details. I'm not trying to add information without a source after telling other people not to do the same lol! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice work!

Just wanted to thank you for your extra effort at that discussion. It took some extra patience to focus on a way past the stalemate, which you did by coming up with great proposals that ultimately led to a compromise. It would have been just as easy to stay dug in with the numbers on your side. Veteran move, well done! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, these situations are tricky and I have definitely gotten better at handling them over the years. Hopefully this one doesn't drag on for too much longer. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Heidi Pusey BYU -- Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoops

I just want to apologize about any inconvenience or stress caused by the discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'm not continuing the GA review until Monday because I'm not working this weekend, but I thought I should tell you that your explanation of the source inclines me to accept it as a source. I didn't expect a decision to be made on by another editor; I just wanted input. I'm new to Wikipedia (I've been on for less than a year) and I guess didn't know about how the Noticeboard worked. I'm sorry I didn't include you in the discussion. I hope this doesn't put a stain on our interactions. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I was just letting you know that you should flick a message or ping involved editors who may not be watching the page you post a message on. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Esposito's role in Captain America: Brave New World

I beg to differ. Pretty sure WP:ANTAGONIST applies to unsourced and subjective descriptions of characters only, while Esposito playing a villain role was backed by RS like THR. An example that comes to mind would be Emma Corrin's role in Deadpool & Wolverine. She was stated as "cast in a lead villain role" as well prior to her role being revealed as Cassandra Nova. — Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Whether that was correct or not (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), we generally avoid this wording per WP:ANTAGONIST and another editor had already reverted this change a few days ago so it should not just be reinstated without discussion at the article's talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I am obviously aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, I was only building my point on what should not be viewed as the subjective interpretation stated in WP:ANTAGONIST, which is being backed by multiple RS. I was not aware of someone else making the same edit before, and I do not think I have to leave a comment on an article's talk page for every one of my (copy)edits. But thanks for letting me know that multiple editors find it inappropriate, I will concede if that is the case. Undisclosed role and undisclosed villain are not really that big of a difference. Let's leave it the current way then. Cheers! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of "undisclosed role" either, I think that has become way overused of late. I personally don't have a big issue with saying someone is going to be the villain, in my experience I think we tend to be okay with that wording when discussing the casting. But in the cast section I do think it is good to avoid it in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Got it! Yea I was also wondering why don't we describe Esposito's character a slightly bit more when the source has clearly provided more info than merely an "undisclosed role". Anyway, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for your timely and helpful explanation!! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about Wakanda Forever

So, I saw you reverted my edit on Wakanda Forever. While I did say it was alright, I am confused by your reasoning. Could you explain it more clearly so I can understand the problem? Jayaltwriter2004! (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You can't just add whatever you want to Wikipedia, everything needs to be supported by a reliable source. See WP:V. Things do get a bit tricky with the lead, which is the opening few paragraphs at the start of the article. Because the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article it generally does not need any in-line citations for verification, but that means it can only include details that are supported by in-line citations in the body of the article. What you added was not supported by what is in the reception section of the article, so that is why I reverted your edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But I gave my reasoning. Not only that, but I also read the reception heading on Wakanda Forever. Isn't that good enough? Jayaltwriter2004! (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you cannot just give your reasoning in the edit summary. You must ensure that everything you add to the lead is also stated in the body of the article and supported by an in-line citation that points to a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

......What? Jayaltwriter2004! (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to do some research on how Wikipedia works. There are links on your talk page that should help you learn about our policies and guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The article Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power and Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Heidi Pusey BYU -- Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The article Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power for comments about the article. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

The article Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power for comments about the article, and Talk:Music of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Heidi Pusey BYU -- Heidi Pusey BYU (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The release date of The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2 must be fixed.

Since Amazon's official website has revised the release date of The Lord of The Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2, it was originally "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season Two will debut globally on 29 August with the first three episodes. Subsequent episodes will roll out weekly each Thursday." has been edited to read "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season Two will debut globally on 29 August."

So I think as you are a good editor you will fix the correct release date.

P.S. I apologize for my English skills. I am a Thai person who is not very good at English. I apologize for the inconvenience. P Phongsakon (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In the future, when you are making a change please explain the reason in your edit summary so other editors know why you are doing it.

Just because they have removed this information from the source does not mean it is not true. They would need to state that is the case or contradict it. For now, we should stick with the current dates until there is updated information for us to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

On IMDB's website, the release is listed as one episode per week. Considering that, along with the edits on Amazon's official website, I think you should edit accordingly. P Phongsakon (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source that we can use. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Numenor site plan from TROP.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Numenor site plan from TROP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to step back

I genuinely meant what I said. If you feel these issues are closed, I'm not going to pursue the issues further. My suggestion was made in good faith as I've said more than once. John Smith's (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the intention behind your messages, I personally am just trying to maintain the standards of the article as we come to a compromise over this wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Well put it like this, I am finding the discussion quite tiring. If you have some further views, I'd be happy to read them. If you have any questions for me, do pose them. Otherwise I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone else has some views. John Smith's (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Recurring

reply to your undoing of my edit, per Wikipedia guidelines Recurring is 3 episodes or more I've been told this many times by Wikipedia staff members! Star Trek should be no exception to to that. 2 episodes are simply a guest role. Sincerely a Star Trek Fan. –ACase0000 (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no guideline that defines recurring guests as appearing in 3 or more episodes. MOS:TVCAST is the relevant guideline here, and all it says is A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status. For a lot of articles, that local consensus is 3+ or 4+ episodes, but this will not always be the case. For Star Trek: Lower Decks season 4 there are a large number of guest stars who appear in only two episodes but they are part of the overarching storyline for the season rather than just making guest appearances in two episodes, including Ma'ah and the other ship captains/mutineers who are part of the ongoing mystery storyline. If there was a strict rule about 3+ episodes then they would be excluded from the cast list, but because we have the ability to form a different consensus where appropriate we are able to expand the list to include them. It is allowed because it fits the story. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Marvel zombies

Hello, I wanted to discuss my edit on the marvel zombies page. It is not my opinion that it is loosely based on the comics, because the comics (mostly referring to Earth-2149 and the hunger virus) and the episode (the quantum virus) differ in significant ways. Firekong1 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It is your opinion because you just decided that yourself. We don't do that in Wikipedia articles. If you want to describe it as "loosely based on the comics" then you need to find reliable sources that support that wording and prove that the majority of good sources out there use it. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, but I’m not using my opinion nor am I edit warring, I am editing in good faith. So please calm down. Firekong1 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have restored your change multiple times, that is edit warring. Stop it. You need to find the sources that support your position and take your concerns to the article's talk page rather than make any more edits. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What sources do I need to use to back up the loosely claim? And I only reverted twice, and did so in good faith. I will take it to the talk page. Firekong1 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I brought it up. I apologize for the misunderstanding regarding edits, I was editing in good faith. So no need to be upset, my friend. Just calm down please. Firekong1 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Downey on Doomsday

I should note that even though Downey Jr. is returning, he is not returning as Iron Man. If he was, then yes RDJ would be at the top per previous precedent on the Avengers films. But in this case, it’s a completely different character unrelated to Iron Man, so his casting should be last on the cast list. The part of WP:MCUFILMCAST that I’m referring to here is item 1, stating that we generally should first list cast members as they are announced - in this case, Benedict revealed it first in an interview when asked about his character, then Jeff Sneider reported Renner was coming back a week or two later, and then the rest I’m going by order at which they were announced at SDCC - since Feige said firsthand that the F4 would be in both films (this was prior to revealing the Doomsday name), and then brought RDJ out as Doom. Please be aware of that. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"The order should generally be based on when actors are revealed, while sequels may use the cast order on past films as a guide." MCUFILMCAST doesn't say anything about actors needing to be playing the same character to be listed in their original placement, you just made that up. Please discuss your concerns at the article's talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The Acolyte Nielsen ratings

I saw that you have reverted my change of the The_Acolyte_(TV_series) page, citing: " unsourced, inappropriate wording"

The source is here: https://www.nielsen.com/data-center/top-ten/

Can you elaborate on your "unsourced", as well as your "inappropriate wording" claim? Because my text is cleary not unsourced, and I also fail to see any inappropriate wording in it:

According to Nielsen_Media_Research, after the first few episodes, viewership however declined sharply, dropping out of the Top Ten of Nielsen ratings, casting doubts about the Disney+ narrative that most negative responses were created by review bombing campaigns.

Timtas (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Timtas (talk page watcher) This is your own original research and iterpretation on the raw ratings, especially the latter half concerning review bombings. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not my own original research, this has been mentioned by various people, and I think the steep drop in the Nielsen ratings during the season is quite obviously a clear indicator of the show not being all that popular. I don't claim there was no review bombing happening, but your interpretation that a drop in viewership during the season shown by a very prominent player may be down to review bombing is clearly very, very adventurous on your behalf.

As it stands, the page still claims that all negative responses are down to review bombing and every other explanation quickly gets deleted. So, basically the official Disney narrative is vigorously defended here. Timtas (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If you add information to Wikipedia you need to provide a reliable source in the article, you can't just write something that you believe to be supported. Most of what you wrote is also clearly your own biased personal opinion about the show. As for the review bombing, the article does include negative details not related to review bombing in the audience response section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think that the phrase "audience responses to the first three episodes focused on the negative portrayal of the Jedi and the creation of Mae and Osha through manipulation of the Force." is also totally pulled out of thin air, and you give no source for that whatsoever. Actually, most negative audience responses focused on the terrible acting, writing and logic. Timtas (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources for those statements are clearly provided in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, they are very clearly not. All there is is an article rebuffing those claims, but no reliable source that viewers largely disliked the series due to canon problems. But obviously https://screenrant.com/ seems to be a totally credible source for you (because it says what you feel), while the Nielsen Ratings are irrelevant (because they tell a different story). I'll leave it at that, as just deleting other people's stuff is far quicker that adding a section that suits your narrative. Timtas (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no reliable way of telling what audiences all feel about a show, we have to rely on sources discussing fan complaints and praise. If you have better ones then feel free to provide them. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Brave New World

It is important to mention, I do not understand why you removed it. Perhaps because you didn't check the archive URL? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not the source that was provided in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Since when is only one revert considered edit warring? WP:EDITWAR defines it as "repeatedly overriding." I reverted only once, technically you reverted more times than I did. Please don't throw out accusations so lightly. Aldwiki1 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I reverted the original incorrect edit and you reinstated the information twice. Maybe my wording was a bit harsh but if you were to continue, which I was warning against doing, you would 100% be edit warring. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You reverted the original edit by the other editor as "unsourced", so I thought if that's issue then I'll add a source. Once you reverted that as well, I thought maybe you missed the information in the article, but now I see that wasn't the case. I'll acknowledge your WP:FRUIT argument and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldwiki1 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Deadpool and Wolverine

What do you recommend for the videos? The source doesn't explain what is meant, while the videos do. In fact, I was not confident that the source for Press Your Luck would qualify as reliable since it appeared to be a press release that was endlessly quoted.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It isn't our job to direct people to a show so they can watch it. If you aren't happy with the explanation in the source then perhaps see if there is a different source with a better write up? - adamstom97 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked and didn't find anything. But if you watch the few seconds of the video, you can see what is meant.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It still isn't great to do it like that. I would start a section at the article's talk page to see what others think about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Black Cat (upcoming film)

Hello, Adamstom.97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Black Cat".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nightwatch (upcoming film)

Hello, Adamstom.97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Nightwatch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Silk (upcoming film)

Hello, Adamstom.97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Silk".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Silver Sable (film)

Hello, Adamstom.97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Silver Sable".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

D&W Archive

It's weird that the auto archiver ran. I did that like 18 hours before and it was already done, so it took me a minute to even realize what the undo was for since I wasn't even around when it went through again. -- ZooBlazer 17:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know how it works haha - adamstom97 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's the fix dead links option in the page history. I mostly just use it to add any missing archives because it's faster than manually adding a bunch, then I normally use proveit after. It usually runs within a couple minutes, not many hours later. I think because it took so long to run, the page changed a lot so the bot messed up. -- ZooBlazer 22:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's called the IABot, and yes it frequently lags. But since the past few days it's been working properly. Anyway, PRRfan copyedited the article but introduced a bunch of errors and key omissions. See this as well. Please fix if possible. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

RE: Edit warring at The Acolyte (TV series)

Hey, here's a complimentary notice since your name came up at the edit warring noticeboard. Nemov (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring at X-Men '97

Hi, in regards to the reversion of my edits I would like to point out that reference 11 (Marston, George (May 15, 2024). "X-Men '97: All the Easter eggs, cameos, and references") has a fair share of misinformation, as pointed out in the comments on the website, and noticed by someone who has watched the show. I won't go into detail on each mistake but three characters (Frenzy, Gentle and Forearm) never appeared, multiple characters were mislabelled (Loa, Marrow, Forearm) and some characters that actually did appear were left out (Scaleface, Sunder, Masque, Gargouille). The Wikipedia page List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 characters backs up the removal of Frenzy and Forearm (Forearm is actually Barbarus, a Savage Land Mutate). I don't need to see the missed characters on there due to not having any 'reliable sources' outside of the actual episodes existence, but at least remove the incorrect information. Thanks and apologies for being annoying, I assumed my first edit was removed due to disambiguation links, I wasn't trying to war. Emcgonigle (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The source we are using is generally considered to be reliable. If you can find alternate sources that cover the people they should and don't cover the people they shouldn't then we can go ahead with your changes. But we can't just take your word for it unfortunately. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The Acolyte (TV series)

Hello, Adamstom.97,

While I don't agree with all of the charges that have been levied against you at ANI, looking over the edit history of the article, it does seem like the vast majority of edits you are making here are reverting other editors, even on minor aspects of the article that aren't being debated on the article talk page. I think that you need to allow other editors to make changes on this page. I even saw an editor post a critic's review, including a citation, and you reverted that addition as well which seemed like a legitimate addition.

This is a collaborative editing project and that means that none of us has ownership of an article, no matter how much we care about it or have contributed to it. Please loosen the reins and as long as they are supported by sources or are just uncontroversial grammatical changes, allow other editors to make constructive changes to this article. These changes might include content about this TV series that is not positive but as long as the content is supported by reliable, independent sources, it should be included. Thanks for considering this request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I should say that this comment is independent of any remark I make on ANI about the related issue brought up there. This is just an editing aspect I noticed while looking into that complaint and my comment here should not be seen as an indication of me "taking a side" in that dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the tone of your comments, but I reject any suggestion that I am not letting other editors work on the article and that I am preventing negative content from being added. All of my reverts have been done in good faith and with a good explanation, and if that isn't the case for specific examples then I am happy to review those. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

A friendly warning

I noticed that in The Acolyte (TV series) you were reverting an IP and I accidentally jumped in with my "drive-by" editing. In the heat of emotions you may decide to revert me the second time as well. This will constitute a 3RR violation. Just answer in the article talk page, and may be I will self-revert, because I do not have an axe to grind there. - Altenmann >talk 21:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how genuine this "friendly warning" is but I have already stopped editing the page and responded to you at the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF, colleague. Yes, I noticed that our edits crossed in time. Anyway, I took this article off my watchlist. - Altenmann >talk 22:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The Acolyte (TV series)

Just because you ignore the edit summaries does not mean that explanations are not given. You cannot change the information in the source as you wish when you add it. I see that you have just been warned and edit warring on the same page (which I have also seen on previous articles). Are you really going to continue this attitude? ภץאคгöร 09:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am not changing anything to how I want it to be, and I don't appreciate you attacking me at my talk page like this. You are the one who insisted on changing the wording to be different from what the source says. This is what you wrote: Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements, performances, and action scenes, but suggested that it was "far from perfect. That is barely supported by the source, which has a section for whether the "different take on familiar Star Wars elements" that has a positive and a negative comment in it; and mentions two comments about good performances but also includes issues with other actors and characters. The version I changed it to is simpler to avoid concerns with SYNTH that you are finding: Initial reviews included praise for the action sequences but mixed feelings on the series' approach to familiar Star Wars elements. You can't deny that those two statements are clearly supported by the source. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

How is this an attack? Your reverts bring back an unreliable source, a synthesis and the outdated rating numbers. When the editors tell you that you have WP:OWN issues, maybe you shouldtake a step back.

Oh, and the source literally states "Critics say the latest Disney+ series delivers a refreshing new spin on tried and true Star Wars elements with solid performances and incredible fight scenes. Most reviews point out how different the series is while still Star Wars enough for the fans, but it’s far from perfect." ภץאคгöร 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I read the whole article, not just the blurb at the top, before adding the information. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god. We add the information explicitly stated by the source (in this case RT), not a synthesized/generalized version of one or two review quotes mentioned. Learn what WP:SYNTH is. Evidently what I added is not barely supported by what the source says:

Initial reviews praised the series's different take on familiar Star Wars elements, performances, and action scenes, but suggested that it was "far from perfect.

Critics say the latest Disney+ series delivers a refreshing new spin on tried and true Star Wars elements with solid performances and incredible fight scenes. Most reviews point out how different the series is while still Star Wars enough for the fans, but it's far from perfect.

Also I don't think you can justify re-adding (three times now?) an unreliable source and the outdated RT scores. ภץאคгöร 09:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't realise the RT scores were being updated as that change was hidden by the unexplained and unnecessary rewording of the sentence that you did. I have restored the updated scores now.

You didn't say that you thought the source was unreliable the first time you removed it and I missed that you had said that the second time. I disagree that it is unreliable and there is no Wikipedia consensus to support that claim. I do agree that it is not the most noteworthy critic to use in the article, but unfortunately there is a lack of critics out there discussing the full series. Most of the reviews, which are covered in the previous paragraphs of the section, are just for the first few episodes. If we had a whole bunch of reviewers discussing the full series then I would agree that this one isn't needed, but since we don't I think it makes sense to include it alongside the one other full series review that we currently have. Only having one is really not ideal from a WP:DUEWEIGHT perspective.

And finally, adding details from a single source is not WP:SYNTH. The article has collected opinions from different reviews and included them under headings. They have drawn a consensus opinion at the top of the article, and we already use a similar consensus from RT in that paragraph, but we aren't restricted to that when adding the information to the article. The article says "Does it take Star Wars in a new direction [and] Is this a good thing?" and then presents one positive comment and one negative comment. It is in no way a violation of WP:SYNTH for us to say there were "mixed feelings on the series' approach to familiar Star Wars elements" based on that. Also, your wording takes the phrase "far from perfect" out of context. The full sentence is "Most reviews point out how different the series is while still Star Wars enough for the fans, but it’s far from perfect" which does not necessarily mean that most reviews think the series itself is "far from perfect". - adamstom97 (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It's good that you finally decided to read the summaries, but your claim that The Indiependent is notable and reliable does not change that it is not. We don't start using such sources just because there are fewer sources for the whole season (and we don't use DUEWEIGHT as an excuse for the full season reviews are mixed claim). Adding two excerpts of reviews as an answer to a question does not show that this source clearly reports a "mixed" consensus for it (and does not invalidate, in your own words, the "consensus opinion": "a refreshing new spin on tried and true Star Wars elements") and that you should remove the other additions (such as explicitly mentioned "performances"). These are entirely your own (invalid) interpretations. Since you are still putting forward the same arguments, I am moving the issue to the discussion page. ภץאคгöร 10:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A question

Hello. I have a question to ask about a page I made reach ''Good Article'' status, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem. So the starring cast in thein the infobox and lead is currently based on the ending titles as seen here.Thing is, I want to follow the consensus at WP:MCUFILMCAST which is to only include actors which have single screen credit but the voice actors for the Turtles (arguably the leads of the film) are all grouped together at the start. So do I remove them from the infobox or not (I still think it is reasonable to keep them in the lead either way)? Zingo156 (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Turtles actors (Micah Abbey, Shamon Brown Jr., Nicolas Cantu, and Brady Noon) are the first actors credited in the ending main titles despite being grouped in one screen and obviously without a "with" or "and" before. Additionally, the official billing block for the film does not list actors so it's not of any help here. Zingo156 (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:MCUFILMCAST only applies to MCU films, so there isn't anything wrong with settling on a new consensus at that article. However, grouping the lead actors at the start is not what is being referred to in WP:MCUFILMCAST. That is talking about groupings of supporting cast members at or near the end, but these are clearly the lead actors and should not be removed. It isn't uncommon for films/shows with multiple main actors to put their names onscreen at the same time. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance! Zingo156 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Gambit lives

Already added the source, but it can fit anywhere in the article except the plot, right? Can u please do something? Kailash29792 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am behind on what is happening at the article currently. Have you raised this at the talk page? - adamstom97 (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have properly added the info in the article's Post-production section (and at the Gambit (unproduced film) article, as well). Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello, Adamstom.97,

I thought I should let you know that I mentioned you on this ANI thread, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IP 2.97.214.7 reported by TheWikiToby. The thread is about one IP account but looking into them led us to other accounts, one of which was complaining about you. I thought there was a thread about that editor on ANI some time ago. You might have an insight into who this sockfarm is. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, though I don't think I really have anything to add to that thread. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		message Sandman1142 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent Rings of Power summaries. They save me from having to research extensive Tolkien lore. Keep it up! Sandman1142 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

GoneIn60 on The Acolyte

Hello there. I think I should notify you that a thread I started recently on Talk:The_Acolyte_(TV_series), that you also commented on, has been arbitrarily "manually archived" by User:GoneIn60, before I was even given a fair chance to make my case. He made this reply, shortly before doing so. As you remember, it was User:Nemov who repeatedly violated WP:NOTAFORUM, and the part GoneIn60 describes as "hate speech disguised as criticism of 'hateful language'" (a laughable accusation, that is almost certainly against community guidelines), is a properly cited and attributed quote taken directly from the article itself.

For the sake of transparency, I'm not a new user, I have a known bias (which is why I consciously avoided the topic of american politics after a couple of past incidents) and have chimed in in the past on subjects that were tangentially related to a known internet hate group known as "The Fandom Menace". My concern with the Audience Reception heading is that it equates a harassment campaign by known bad actors with legitimate responses from Star Wars fans, which is WP:FALSEBALANCE and gives it disproportionate coverage, putting it ahead of everything else, which is WP:UNDUE. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, internet trolls complaining about the show count as the audience responding to it. And they are the main reason that such a section exists in the article, as standard fan responses to a show are generally not noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We could discuss this on the article talk page. My reason for coming here is the behavior of a couple of editors arbitrarily shutting down that conversation and hurling personal attacks at the rest of us. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with the discussion being removed how it was, but I don't think it would be a good use of time to restart it. If you have more specific suggestions for how to improve the section, without just deleting most of its content, then there is another thread at the talk page about that which you could contribute to. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IP, if there is an issue with an edit I made, I'd hope you'd first discuss with me on my talk page, but if you feel there is an overall pattern of editing behavior that requires escalation to an admin, then you should escalate to WP:ANI. Just be aware that you'll need strong evidence to go that route. Also, realize that I was not the editor that originally collapsed the discussion, but I did expand what was collapsed. It was then archived for a technical reason, which I stated in the comments of my edit summary. If you'd like to discuss any of this further, feel free to begin a thread on my talk page.

However, further posts on the article talk page should be about improving the article as adamstom97 says, backed by reliable sources. Dropping accusations, personal opinions about content, and general ranting can be removed as a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. Please review Wikipedia's talk page guidelines on why this is the case. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the thread more closely, I actually concur that it should not have been removed from the page and apologize. I somehow misread that you were quoting the source in part of that post. The thread has been restored, and I have struck my comments. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time, if you want me to discuss your changes with you, please refrain from personal attacks and wild accusations based on hasty assumptions. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

There was a lot of haste involved, and I can assure you, that was the reason for the error. These talk pages have been a magnet for unhelpful, forum-like commentary, so your thread was unfairly labeled as such. I will be more careful at this page moving forward. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"c/e and clean-up"...

FYI, regarding this edit of yours, all of the references include/mention the "acclaim" the season received. The reason why so many sources were added is because an editor questioned the sources and disputed the "acclaim", even though several sources were already cited. Additional information may be usable from these deleted sources. ภץאคгöร 20:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I checked and a bunch of them did not support the term "critical acclaim". Sources saying the season had positive reviews are not the same thing. I narrowed it down to the key sources that did actually support that wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you can show me a few that you think do not support the term so that I can actually show that they directly mention it? ภץאคгöร 07:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

These are the sources that were in the article:

1. "acclaim" but not "critical acclaim"
2. "acclaim from fans and critics alike" in reference to the Rotten Tomatoes score
3. supports "critical acclaim"
4. uses "acclaim" in reference to social media users
5. "Acclaimed revival series"
6. supports "critical acclaim"
7. supports "critically acclaimed"
8. supports "critical acclaim" in relation to a different article
9. supports "critical acclaim"
10. supports "critical acclaim"
11. supports "critical acclaim" but is redundant due to 10
12. "serious critical and fan acclaim"
13. "acclaim" but not "critical acclaim" and out-dated Rotten Tomatoes data
14. supports "critical acclaim"

I removed 1, 4, 5, and 13 for not supporting the term "critical acclaim". I kept 10 and 14 as being two of the best quality sources and removed 11 and 12 as redundant to them. Of the GamesRadar sources I kept 7 over 2 since 7 covers the whole season and 2 is specifically repeating the Rotten Tomatoes data. Of the two director interviews I picked 6 over 8 since 8 was just linking to another article. 3 and 9 are primarily about other things (merchandise and one of the actors) so they did not add much. That got us down to a less ridiculous number of citations. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

In short, as you can see all of them mention acclaim. That's the point. The word acclaim(ed) is an exceptional claim that can be used with or without the word critical(ly). In addition, the possibility of accessing additional information from the deleted sources I mentioned is still valid. ภץאคгöร 18:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As an uninvolved editor, I'll just say that trimming down an absurd number to a less absurd number is a good thing. WP:CITEKILL is just an essay, but citation clutter (and citation overkill) is a real concern that a lot of editors take seriously. It's pretty rare to need more than 2-3 high-quality citations and extremely rare to need more than 4-5. You can use WP:CITEBUNDLE to reduce the clutter, but you still want relevant citations so that editors are not wasting time at less relevant, low-quality sources.

Also, since the phrase in the article reads "critical acclaim", you definitely want sources that support acclaim from critics. If it doesn't explicitly state "critical", that's technically fine, but it better be clear they're talking about critics and not audience/fans. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: If you think some of the sources I removed should be restored then I am happy to continue this discussion at Talk:X-Men '97. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LotR War of the Rohirrim logo.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LotR War of the Rohirrim logo.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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) 17:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Season 2 of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Hi. In two of the recent episodes of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season two, I was wondering if you have any issues on listing the Sea Worm that spared the guilty party as a sea monster on the episode in question. As for the recent episode, do you think the plot for it would be too much if any information regarding an accidental death caused Celebrimbor and the elf who informed Elrond about the dwarf army withdrawl is added. Thanks for finding information on Damrod's second voice actor --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I fit as much as I could into the plot summary, so there isn't room for that info unless we removed something else. I think the sea monster link should be okay. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Andor season 1

Hello, Adamstom.97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Andor season 1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Section 31

Thank you for fixing that citation, I clearly didn't get it right.

It looks like Wikipedia does report on disproportionate dislikes (see: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, Ghostbusters (2016 film), Friday (Rebecca Black song), Sonic the Hedgehog (film)…), but if it's not notable enough for this article so be it.

Regarding cited sources, how are you determining which ones are acceptable to use? Serious question. I see Giant Freakin Robot cited on about 70 Wikipedia articles currently, many of them Trek-related, and of course I'm still prefacing its material as the author's opinion. It doesn't really seem different from the likes of ComicBook.com or Geeks WorldWide, which are included as citations, so what is it that's different? Redshirts Always Die is similarly cited on several Trek articles, I realize it's fairly "fansite-y," but it's not to be considered reliable yet TrekMovie.com, Trekkie Girls, Trek Sphere and Daily Star Trek News are? None of these sources have been deprecated, listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or discussed on the RS Noticeboard from what I can see. Where is the consensus that they are reliable/unreliable? I don't want to go so far as to say it seems like cherry picking sources, but it does look very weird to read the article as it stands with hardly a mention of the trailer's generally very negative reception and instead just find example after another of obsequious praise. -- TanookiMike (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something is done at another article does not mean it is correct. I am making judgments on these sources based on my experience and understanding, most of the ones you listed are fan sites that do not meet journalistic standards and should be avoided. ComicBook.com is an exception to that, and I have found TrekMovie.com to be a good source in some instances (and it has been accepted in multiple GA reviews) but I would not use them for their reviews/opinions since it is still a Star Trek website and their views do not necessarily reflect general critical opinions. it does look very weird to read the article as it stands with hardly a mention of the trailer's generally very negative reception -- what are you basing this on? Negative comments online? That would fall under WP:USERG. We would need reliable sources to comment on these responses, but the majority of good sources that I found didn't do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's done on a lot of them and a lot are are considered good articles, but okay, I'll defer to your judgment. I'm basing it on the fact the trailer got ratioed. But we can't talk about that, nor can we cite any of the sources that do. Are you trying to tell me it wasn't? It's like we're not allowed report on reality unless the acceptable sources do. Whatever. -- TanookiMike (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's like we're not allowed report on reality unless the acceptable sources do -- this is true. What matters on Wikipedia is not what an editor believes to be "reality", but what acceptable sources can support. Otherwise any editor could add anything to an article and claim that it is the truth. But even if there was a reliable source to support the trailer being "ratioed", that is still unlikely something that would get mentioned in the article because it falls under WP:USERG. There is no way of verifying that comments and likes/dislikes on a video are genuine and representative. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)