User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased comment on Stranger Things (TV series)

Thank you and the other administrator --Mfor the brief comments you placed in the Talk section. Within a few hours, the other editor who had been deleting my revisions made some significant edits, in the direction I was hoping. (Clarifying the differences in cast and plot between Season 1 and 2).

It was not what either of you said on the Talk page. It was the visibility of two independent editors taking a fresh look, making it clear that others were involved in the dispute.

Much of the content of this article was written by the editor with whom I was having a dispute. I came to the article much later and made some revisions. Initially, he disagreed with every single change. A proprietary attitude, in my opinion.

While the dispute was troubling, Wikipedia readers benefit from the outcome: a more accurate article. This Wikipedia:Third opinion should be more widely publicized to editors.

All the best! Peter K Burian (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome for what little input I had. I am quite familiar with this sort of issue, as I tend to be involved in incidents like this quite frequently. It is important for both sides to look at the issue from each other's perspective: I understand what it is like to have all your edits reverted when you were certain you were improving the page, but I also know that Favre1fan93 has been involved in a lot of articles where these sorts of issues have already been solved, with the best practises already widely in use. In this case, Favre was right about the formatting that should be used, but you were right in that some clarification was needed to aid readers who were coming to learn about the series. In the end, all that matters is that the article came out the other side better than it went in. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree; Favre1fan93 is clearly an experienced editor who did a great job on the article when there was only a Season 1. The problem was, when Season 2 was announced, with info about the added cast and plot, the update to the article was not well done. Bits of info were added but without a clear explanation of what is in Season 2 vs. Season 1. As a new reader that was immediately apparent to me. My edits were intended to solve that. Nearly all were reverted. (Favre1fan93 did a lot of reverting in two days. And yet he warned me about Edit Warring; oh well, no big deal now.)

Eventually, we seemed to reach a compromise. I still feel that the cast added in Season 2 should be mentioned much earlier in the article, so it does not sound as if the new actors were in the show from Day 1; (that is clearly specified only near the end under Casting). In any event, the compromise seems OK for both of us and I am convinced it was reached only because of the Wikipedia:Third opinion. All the best. Peter K Burian (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

	Congrats, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Laws of Nature (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Joker (character) nominated for deletion

You are invited to take part at the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). DarkKnight2149 23:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

GA nom for 0-8-4

I've started the review at Talk:0-8-4/GA1. A few minor issues, but otherwise it looks pretty good. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 0-8-4

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 0-8-4 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 Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 0-8-4

The article 0-8-4 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:0-8-4 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Asset

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Asset 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 Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New D'Onofrio quote

Don't know if you saw this, but I was having difficulty figuring out where to put this info. I know we have D'Onforio commenting on similar stuff on each of the Netflix main articles, but we also have info on the main MCU page. Wanted your thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps at the MCU page, in our big "potential crossover" paragraph that starts "In October 2014, Feige...", we could stick onto the end that D'Onofrio later added in regards to the subject that TV actors crossing over is unlikely any time soon because the films already have too many characters. Just a small bit, where the rest of it is there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. I'll add it in. And I guess also on that, would there be a better location for that chunk of content? Now it seems to be splitting the TV development content. Maybe a new sub or sub-sub section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Since it is obviously a notable point, maybe we should give it a section like we do for distributors in the film section. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're thinking like a sub section to "Television" in the Development section? What do you think it should be called? If it will be a sub section, I was thinking "Crossovers with the feature films" or something similar. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "Crossovers to feature films", because the distinction is the TV to film crossover not the film to TV crossovers that have already happened? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll try that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Asset

The article The Asset you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Asset for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Girl in the Flower Dress

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Girl in the Flower Dress 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 Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you did to help get Black Panther (film) ready for the mainspace. And thanks for being a continued friend and colleague in working on the MCU articles. :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all good, we've really got into a good pattern I think, and I'm really happy with what we have been doing :) And it's so exciting right now with so many projects ramping up - three films and at least three series to film in the next few months alone! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Girl in the Flower Dress

The article Girl in the Flower Dress you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Girl in the Flower Dress for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

Hi, are you interested in discussing this move? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

FX Productions rebranding

Are you very much aware that the production company is now FXP? How come its been reverted back to FX Productions in Man Seeking Woman and Legion? S hannon434 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating this is so? Because from the evidence I've seen at Legion, it is still called FX Productions, with FXP used for shorthand. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the link that uses FX Productions' new name. www.comingsoon.net/tv/trailers/777833-new-legion-promo-dan-stevens-gets-psychokinetic/amp?client=safari . 107.77.216.8 (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That article uses FX Productions as well as FXP, just like all the other sources we have. Like I said, FXP appears to just be shorthand for the actual name, FX Productions. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Black Panther (film)

On 2 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Panther (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wesley Snipes had been interested in portraying the Black Panther in film for more than 20 years, before Marvel Studios officially announced Black Panther in 2014 with Chadwick Boseman in the role? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Panther (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Panther (film)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of FZZT

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article FZZT 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

LMD title card

I think we should add this somewhere, once we can find it. However, since we already have two on the main article, that's pushing it a bit with non-free policy I feel. Here are my thoughts that I wanted to run by you for use: Have it be the infobox image for the "Broken Promises" article, or we wait, and upload a composite image of the season 3 title card and all the season 4 cards as one image at the main article, but each very, very small to better satisfy NFC policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Also. I'm fine with the adjustment to the columns on the LoC page. However, that code now does not allow for each of the column section to be edited directly. All would have to be edited from the Guest heading (at least that was happening for me). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just talk about the additional title cards at the main page, and then use them in the infoboxes for the episodes that they are introduced with, including the season 3 title card. And I see what you are talking about with the LoC. I was just trying to find a way to have the second column move down for smaller screens, as my new laptop was trying to cram the two columns together and it just wasn't all that usable. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, looks like we were thinking the same thing: I just whipped up this in my sandbox. I think it is a bit different to the one in yours. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine having possibly one additional title card on the main page (probably the season 3 one). The Ghost Rider one would have to be for the infobox of 402 because we already have the Ghost Rider promo image in 401 (or just put it in the body). And then I'd be fine putting the LMD one as the infobox image for "Broken Promises" or in the body if a better infobox image presents itself. And yeah we did with the Ridley stuff! I didn't think it would be good for the draft space because we only know those bits and pieces of info. We can try combining both of what we thought if it seems appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Now that you created "Broken Promises" (nice job, will give a nice look over soon for c/e), what do you think we should do with the two title cards on the main article? The season 3 one should probably stay, given it was used for the whole season. The Ghost Rider one I'm not sure about, because we already have the promo image of Reyes for "The Ghost", but I don't necessarily think it would fit for "Meet the New Boss". So maybe leave it on the main article for now, or add it to the season 4 page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Could we put it in the infobox for "The Ghost", and then move the promo image down to the marketing info? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

We could, but I do feel the promo image of the flaming head is a better representation of the article, as a whole. Maybe in reverse, the title card could go in the article of "The Ghost"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved the title card to the development section of "The Ghost". - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that looks good to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I posted the different logos of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on the season 4 page. Since they have been removed, I was wondering if they could be possibly used among the episode articles? Maybe even create articles for more recent episodes. I would just like to know what the appropriate location for the images should be. -

NyNameIsASDF (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Adamstom.97. You have new messages at Talk:FZZT/GA1.
Message added 23:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am going to do one or two more readthroughs, proofreading for possible issues that I might have missed but (barring finding any problems) intend to finish up my Review within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

FZZT

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of FZZT

The article FZZT you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:FZZT for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Runaways (TV series)

On 19 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Runaways (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the upcoming television series Runaways was first developed in 2008 as a feature film by Marvel Studios but was shelved due to the success of The Avengers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Runaways (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Runaways (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Hub (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"Self Control" poster...

for once the article is created. It can be used as the infobox image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article! Also, just an FYI I've been meaning to tell you. Did you know that you can upload files with a "plain" form without the upload wizard (see Special:Upload)? This is how I upload new posters etc because it allows me to just use the proper templates and data to be in the image from the get-go, without then adjusting as such. So for example, with File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. "Self Control" poster.jpg, after selecting the file from my computer, I would have put "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. "Self Control" poster.jpg" in the first field. Then for Summary, I would go to another poster of ours already uploaded (in this case say File:Agents of SHIELD Uprising.jpg), then copy all the wikicode from that file, and paste in the upload Summary parameter. Adjust the title and source parameters as needed, and that's it. Leave Licensing as "None selected" and then hit upload. Just a helpful tip if you'd want to consider in the future. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that file uploads and Commons and stuff is one area that I am still learning about. And I was planning to keep making the episode articles in order, but I was starting to go through stuff for the season article after this weeks episode and kept finding a lot of stuff that was episode specific, so I just went ahead and did both at once. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah no worries. If the image is something for the MCU, the plain form as I mentioned might be the way to go, since we already have proper templates and cats for all of our uploads. But if it is outside the MCU, the file wizard may be better (I even use it then too). I totally agree on jumping to this episode too, given the amount of info we had readily available for it. No problem there! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cloak & Dagger (TV series)

On 26 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cloak & Dagger (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a version of the Freeform television series Cloak & Dagger had been in development since 2011, when the network was still known as ABC Family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cloak & Dagger (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cloak & Dagger (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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) 12:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Your 3RR comment

Hey, Adam. Just a friendly word of warning. Concerning your recent "you have broken the WP:3RR rule" comment, I would note that you have also broken it at two articles, with four reverts at Star Trek: Discovery and four reverts at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4), as 3RR doesn't differentiate between the same or different material on each article. Just a note to you. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I know this can be a tricky area. I was pretty sure that I had not gone beyond the 3 reverts since I have only undone revisions 3 times on each page, but I see that I have also restored the articles to earlier versions as well, so that's my bad. I think I'll just keep away for a bit, since I'm not in a great position to be pursuing any further actions at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems. I've found myself in the same situation before, with IP editors that just want to force their own version across. I've requested page protection for ST:D to force the IP to take it to the talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

MCU edit

Hi, I see you undid a revision of mine on the MCU page. I don't recall duplicating the section, and I believed that I had just fixed a minor typo. Is there an explanation for why this might have happened? Packer1028 (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this sooner. In this diff here you can see the duplication error. I'm not sure why or how that would have happened accidentally, but I see that you made the edit using the mobile app. I'm not familiar with it, so I can't say for sure, but perhaps there was an issue there? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Iron Fist reviews

Hey Adam. If you get a chance, and wouldn't mind, could you help me give the reception section a copy-edit? Since I've added most of the review in, I don't know if I can accurately view it from the outside to see what and how it can all be reduced some. No worries if you can't or don't want to take a stab at it. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just been avoiding the page for the last couple of days. Once I've seen the show I'll be back to help out. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Understood! No worries! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Here's a source for Bride of Nine Spiders and her actress. I finished ep 7 and am slowly making my way through the remaining 6. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions that helped promote Doctor Strange (film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thank you for your continued work on keeping all MCU articles up to snuff and helping promote Doctor Strange to good article status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Iron Fist Viral Marketing

Came across this faux website for Wing's dojo, which leads to a LinkedIn profile for Ward Meachum, which in turn leads to this NY Bulletin Digital Report. Don't know how it would be best to mention these things on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. A mention in the marketing section I guess, with notes for the actors reprising their roles. Has any other source picked up on this? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not that I can tell at the moment. That would be helpful in adding this, because I, and I'm sure you too, would want to avoid sourcing the direct links to the content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is good info to discuss, but it would be best if someone else discussed it first. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Rogue One article

I mentioned in my edit summary if you saw that this might be an April fool's joke. But has this been confirmed?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the "source" at the bottom of the article linked to this image, and you'll see that the article has since been update. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And here, Black Kite Tenebrae is tainting and invalidating his own RfC movement by Wp:CANVASSing to users who are not A)Doing so in a central location (i.e. the RfC list, though it is there) B)Notifying editors that are not mentioned in nor involved in the discussion prior to his notices, and C)By Spamming.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Supernatural (TV series) and Inhuman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC request

Hello Adamstom.97,

When you get the chance, could you review Naruto for FA? If you can't, please reply. Thanks. -- 1989 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a look over it for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of List of Agent Carter characters

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article List of Agent Carter characters 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. Cambalachero (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

added a link pointing to Trevor Morris

Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

added a link pointing to EMP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of List of Agent Carter characters

The article List of Agent Carter characters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:List of Agent Carter characters for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cambalachero -- Cambalachero (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Revert

This was not a vandal edit, nor was it in bad faith. Yet you undid it without commenting. That's not good - please don't do that. Thanks. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to provide a source to support your claim, which was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for not providing an edit summary, I realise that is bad form on my part. But Favre is correct—you added an unsourced, personal opinion to an article. That is something I would consider to be vandalism. It is up to you to prove otherwise. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So we're providing a quote that is demonstrably untrue, but saying anything at all about that means treating an established editor as a vandal but that's just perhaps "bad form" on your part? Wow. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH. The burden is still on you to provide a new reliable source stating updated or clarified information, which you did not. So yes, that was vandalism. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted

Isn't User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/5 (it looks like the title is "The Gifted" now(?)) pretty much ready for mainspace now? Filming is underway. I'm not super clear on the nuances for when TV series articles are ready for mainspace, but isn't being in production/filming enough to allow for the move into mainspace?... P.S. If you need WP:Page mover help in moving your draft to mainspace (as the current redirect will either need to be moved, or be deleted (which would take an Admin to do...)), just let me know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally I think it is good to wait until a series pickup, since at the moment the order is only for a pilot. Usually we don't want articles that are just about pilots, but this may be one of the cases where even only the pilot will be enough for a good article. Perhaps we can start another wee discussion somewhere like Talk:Gifted (TV series), and see what some others think. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so it's still just a TV pilot?!... Yeah, I remember now... I made an edit about that at X-Men in other media about a month back... Yeah, you're right – if it hasn't been picked up to series yet, it's likely not ready for mainspace, as most "unaired TV pilot" articles don't qualify for articles (though this one may be one of the exceptions!...). But you're instincts are right to wait, if it hasn't been picked up to series yet. Danke! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just curious, but if the title is The Gifted, then shouldn't the previously-linked talk page exist at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)? Unless I'm missing something here... -- Alex^TW 13:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be "officially" confirmed anywhere. This tweet is the only thing I've seen that seems to semi-officially use the "The". As far as I can tell, "Gifted"/"The Gifted" are just unofficial "working titles" right now. My guess is that they won't pick an "official" title until it's picked up to series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

X-Men in other media should probably be changed, then, given that it says that On March 10, 2017, the official title was announced to be The Gifted.. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't have an official title yet, and the cast/crew have been calling it both Gifted and The Gifted on social media. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I put the hidden note about Adam's draft at the redirected "The Gifted (TV series)" article as well, directing readers to Talk:Gifted (TV series) for more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As I suspect you already know, it looks like FOX picked this one up: [1] So it should be ready to go "live" now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks IJBall,I'm working on getting it up now. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted

i'm telling you there are all real — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyellow (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We still need reliable sources for anything that we add to an article. We can't take your word for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

MCU

Re: this edit, you might want to check that shows entry at the Marvel Television page. - ^theWOLFchild 00:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been following that article, but it should probably have some sort of note about this given our discussions at various places (including Talk:Runaways (TV series)). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Runaways is listed there. The page states that all shows are MCU unless otherwise noted. Runaways isn't noted as non-mcu. That's why I added it to the MCU page. But whatever... - ^theWOLFchild 01:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, it should have some sort of note saying it isn't in the MCU, because we haven't been told that it is yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted TV series

You continue to revert edits by other users, for grammar corrections. It's a minor edit and yet you immovably change it back into it's impartial sentence. User:DisneyMetalhead adds in the word "and" where there should be one, and you revert it to be a sentence in which a semi-colon should be used instead. To me it appears as WP:OWNing behavior. There is no reason for that edit to be taken to the talkpage..... you're the only one who disagrees with it.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it was wrong: there should not be an "and" there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There should be a joining-word between the two ideas of the TV series being A) connected to the X-Men films, and B) the second series to do so. Whether that's with an 'and' or a semi-colon instead of a comma. Currently it is an incomplete sentence.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. "the second series to be so" is a dependent clause, not its own independent idea. Using either "and" or a semi-colon would create a grammatically incorrect sentence. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD title cards

Hi. In regards to the episode-specific title cards, I was about to add the episodes themselves as references before my edits were reverted. Additionally, your comment stating that discussion of episode-specific title cards should be restricted to the episode articles only is slightly confused as "4,722 Hours" has been listed for quite some time, and since there are only three episodes that have unique title cards separate from their respective season, there is little harm in adding them to the main series page. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It is preferable to get third-party sources referencing this sort of thing rather than just the episodes themselves. I hadn't thought about "4,722 Hours" there, so sorry about the confusion. Perhaps you could find some sources for these and then start a discussion at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and we could sort out what is going to be best overall then? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But would the episodes themselves suffice if no third-party sources can be found? In theory, there's no better source than the episode itself, right? I will have a search, though. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Using the episode itself assumes that everyone has access to it, everyone interprets it the same way, that sort of thing. But no, we don't need a third-party source if none exists. Have a look anyway, and then we can discuss it all with whoever else is interested. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted the different logos of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on the season 4 page. Since they have been removed, I was wondering if they could be possibly used among the episode articles? Maybe even create articles for more recent episodes. I would just like to know what the appropriate location for the images should be. - NyNameIsASDF (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The episode articles are more appropriate, but they shouldn't be created just so we have somewhere to put the images. Once an episode article is created for "What If...", the Agents of Hydra title card can be added there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Holden Radcliffe

Hi, I'm Devopam. Adamstom.97, thanks for creating Holden Radcliffe!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please help to establish notability by putting in verifiable WP:SECONDARY references per Wiki norms.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Devopam (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Venom film

FYI, Draft:Venom (2018 film) already exists, so it would be beneficial for you to just dump add what you did in your sandbox to the draft. i was going to work on the draft article when I had some time coming up, but it would be better for you to add in your content first before i do my work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I don't know why I didn't check for an existing draft before I started. I'll send my content over there and stick it on my watchlist. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Also, just wondering if you know of a draft for the Black Cat/Silver Sable movie, which I am also looking to start work on. I wouldn't know what the draft would be called to look for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see from searching, I can't find anything. I'd start it at Draft:Untitled Black Cat/Silver Sable film if you wanted to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've started the draft, though there isn't as much there as there is for Venom. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

That was a good job on The Well (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)#Stock footage of Oslo riots was actually shot in Dublin, Ireland. Now if we could only locate a source for The Inside Man (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) that points out how messed-up it is to imply that a certain country has nuclear weapons, which is probably the most independently noteworthy thing about the episode.

You can probably see why I'm a bit of a deletionist when it comes to pop culture - this wouldn't really be an issue if each standalone episode was confined to a five-sentence plot summary in a list.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Forget it. Not worth it. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has nothing to do with "Japanese culture", but I can definitely see a block-happy admin coming after me for the above and an unblock-unhappy admin not accepting any appeals. You can look into the nuclear thing if you want, but I'm gonna just pretend I never wrote the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think something is a big deal then you can look for sources that support that, but if there aren't any then it is better to just keep some personal things to ourselves. Also, it is just a TV show. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that if anything the difference is between the TV show's writers writing a character as holding the silly view that Vishnu is an alien[2] and said show's writer's indicating that they themselves hold the silly view that real-world Japan has nukes. There's no reason to believe that it was just a difference between the world of the MCU and the world of real life; it was just stated as a given. I doubt any real-world Columbia professors thought Daredevil season two was specifically attacking them, but directly stating that in the MCU the Three Principles don't even exist is on anoher level. Anyway, you're right. I might look around for sources, probably starting with the Japanese season three DVDs. If the dubbed version just glossed over the issue (as I suspect), then it's entirely possible no one in Japan except me even noticed it. If anyone did, though, it's almost certain to have been discussed somewhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That said, this is not a priority for me. I was just pointing it out here (rather than on the article talk page) in case you were interested. (And I hope any talk page stalkers you have, especially if any of them are block-happy admins, can read between the lines of this addendum.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legion (season 1)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Legion (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 Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Murphy's Suspension of Disbelief.gif

You gotta get an admin to deal with fixing the tag at File:Murphy's Suspension of Disbelief.gif. Sagecandor (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legion (season 1)

The article Legion (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Legion (season 1) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Agent Carter film DYK

If you don't get some sort of notification for it, nominated the article for DYK here. And thanks for coming in to help with the c/e. Didn't realize how quote heavy it was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I got the notification, and no worries with the c/e there. That was a holdover from our "old ways", shows how far we've come in a short time. BTW, I've stopped watching the Homecoming page today. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I know. I felt the same way on seeing that. Good to know. I'm gonna hold out at least until the premiere. I bit the bullet and saw what was added, unfortunately. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy at the moment so it should be a little easier for me to avoid things, but its tough when they start putting spoilers in article titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If it matters at all to you, the piece of info that I think we were both referring to on SMH has been debunked, so (at this time), it has been removed from the article and it is still safe if you wanted to keep eyes on it at all for a bit longer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Good to know, but I think I'll leave it since its only 3 weeks until I can see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing! Just wanted you to be aware, regardless. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (manga)

Hi Adamstom.97,

Would you be able to review the Dragon Ball manga for GA? If you're unable to, let me know. -- 1989 15:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@1989: sorry, I am quite busy at the moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Explanation

User and I got into a bit of a tussle [3] where the user falsely asserted WP:WIAGA "Stability" means "Article must be as old in time as I dictate", before it can be declared "stable".

WP:WIAGA does not say that.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. = no more, no less.

So, the user willfully ignores the wording of WP:Good article criteria in one case, it is clear they just make stuff up that is not written in WP:Good article criteria.

Now, as far as disputing one of my reviews, after that above cited interaction, user came to one of my GA reviews, and claimed to be an "Uninvolved" [4], party, which is clearly false -- we had been involved in a dispute mere hours before !

So what we have here, unfortunately, is a bit of stalking going on and I'm scratching my head figuring out the best way to deal with it.

If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears ?

Sagecandor (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I commented at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Legion (season 1)/1, does my comment look okay to you ? Sagecandor (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This all seems a little silly to me, but I think I am sorting it out with them at their talk page so hopefully this mess will be cleaned up soon. Thanks for the explanation. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry you are going through this trouble. Sagecandor (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a great idea, how about I don't review any more film and television articles? You guys seem to have it all worked out. I mostly work on history articles. I've never encountered anyone who felt so entitled to pass GA until I reviewed Sagecandor's nomination, and boy, do I wish I hadn't. Sorry about that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That is inappropriate, and, once again, very childish. Anyone can review an article that has been nominated for GA. That is how it works. You have no right to speak to Sage like that, and why you feel the need to do so on my talk page is beyond me. How about you stick to yourself, and when you are ready to take further action on the article, do so in a more appropriate place (i.e. not my talk page). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Like what, exactly? I don't think your aware of how inappropriate your tone is, on your talk page or mine. He is posting on your talk page about me, if you didn't want the discussion here you should have removed it for being inappropriate in a timely fashion. I'm really not comfortable reviewing either of you. I was going to review Deadpool, until I saw you nominated it. Mostly because I don't want to fight over whether this is well written or grammatically correct: The film was released in North America on February 12, and became both a financial and critical success: it earned over $783 million dollars, breaking numerous records and becoming the overall highest-grossing R-rated film, the highest grossing X-Men film, and the ninth-highest grossing film of 2016; it received critical praise for Reynolds' performance, the film's style and faithfulness to the comics, and its action, though some criticized the plot as formulaic as well as the sheer number of jokes in the film; and it received numerous awards and nominations, including two Critics' Choice Award wins and two Golden Globe nominations — it is neither of those things, but there are editors who don't seem to mind this use of semi-colons, I would rather let them review your articles. When I read it, it looks like one example after another of how to not use semi-colons, but there are 30 GA articles, I'm not about to review them all and start a public community discussion to finalize our community consenus on whether this is an inappporiate abuse of punctuation, at least not today. If other editors think it is ok, let them review your articles. You've worked on 30 GA articles so I'm not going to argue with what seems to be a consensus here that this is well-written and I'm not going enough to spend anymore time on it then I already have, because we've talked about it at length and you've been very clear that you do not see the problem. It's clear to me that neither one you are editors who are interested in my input on improving the prose in articles, and I'm not here to force that on anyone. Like I said last night, ultimately its up to you. I'm not being petty, as you keep saying, I honestly don't think it's quite there. And I don't think you are going to take it well if I fail one of your articles, so I'm not going to, even though my personal opinion as a GA Reviewer is that it should fail or be reassessed. This has already far exceeded my level of interest in entertainment articles. If you and other editors think this is good (like Sagecandor), then yes, you are free to pass to those articles. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not to say I'm not going to ask for reassessment. We've tried discussing, as you asked me to before a reasessemnt, and it has not been productive. I'm going to have to think about it, but I don't think further discussion between us is necessary, as we have discussed the issue at some length. I could do an individual reassessment, but since more then one article may be effected, I prefer community input here. I will reconsider after some time has passed, and I've re-read the article. Obviously, I am not going to make any decisions immediately following a discussion like this. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Iron Fist (TV series)

As there is consensus for "generally negative," will you go ahead and implement your proposed wording? It's clearly best that this issue go ahead and be resolved. The discussion has ceased to be a discussion, and is now just a belittling match. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus yet. Just be patient, and stick to that talk page rather than creating multiple discussions (which has already been done to a ridiculous degree). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I was actually debating on moving all of the discussions on the talk page (which are all about the critical reception) to subheaders of a single discussion, so that they're all archived at the same time. Do you think that this would be a valid-enough edit? -- Alex^TW 03:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that wouldn't be a bad idea. They are all the same thing really. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that there was a consensus at the time of my above post, but I appreciate you trying to keep things focused and calm. I was not trying to create yet another discussion by asking you to go ahead and implement your proposal. I was trying to cease the discussion, as it no longer seemed necessary and was no longer productive. Anyway, thank you for proposing the text, asking again about it at the talk page and then implementing it. 72.213.205.141 (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krypton TV series logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krypton TV series logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe)‬"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article "Claire Temple (Marvel Cinematic Universe)" for the reason "not a duplicate." Actually, if you look immediately above the portal template, you'll see the Marvel Cinematic Universe portal link in the Marvel Cinematic Universe navbar—the two links to the identical portal are right next to each other. Would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hacksaw

Yeah, I'd fail it. I just don't have any time to work on it at the present time. Rusted AutoParts 05:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I figured as much. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Daredevil vs Jessica Jones

I finally got around to watching Daredevil season one, and I liked it quite a bit. I was wondering if I should watch Jessica Jones next, or if I should go straight to S2. What would you recommend? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd watch in release order, so I'd go to Jessica Jones next, then Daredevil season 2, Luke Cage and Iron Fist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your revert at Claire Temple

I'm not going to fight you over the revert on Claire Temple as I'm pretty much tired of wiki page owners, but I'd like to point a few things.

• I really doubt using the revert was the correct action (following the guidelines of Wikipedia:Reverting#When to revert), as my edit, even if you think was bad, was a good-faith edit and not vandalism.
• Continuing from the last point, the revert action also caused good information to be lost, as I linked the text already available to the direct episodes, basically adding the references to what was already listed.
• Your revert message itself really makes the page feel owned by you (and some mystery group) by saying "we just want a general summary[...]". Instead, you could have re-worded your message to make it less possessive.
• Continuing from the last point, where does it actually say that the character bio page should only have a general summary? You said that the more detailed information should be for plot summaries, but that leads to a few problems. Firstly, most of these Netflix shows don't have episode pages (whether by choice or not, I do not know), so the plot summaries available are also the shortened versions. Adding Clair-centric information to those summaries would probably be removed as well. Secondly, how is that even a good alternative? Say I want to know more about the MCU's version of Clair Temple, I'd have to (1) find out what shows she was in; (2) find out what episodes she was in; (3) and then navigate between several and dozens of episodes, searching for the specific Clair Temple information. All this instead of having all the relevant Clair Temple information on the Clair Temple page.

Hope you take this to heart before you revert another editor. --Gonnym (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

"we" refers to the general Wikipedia community, who want the best out of all our articles. And I explained that there should not be an episode-by-episode breakdown of the character's summary, per MOS:TV—"this section is not a character's biography and should not be a detailed recording of the character's every move, as this can create an overly long section devoted entirely to in-universe information – think of it as being similar to a plot section of an episode article; the information should be succinct. Instead, try and summarize major events that occur with the character." What you were trying to do also borders on another important issue at MOS:TV regarding the recording of the exact appearances (or non-appearances) of cast members/characters, which is something that people have been trying to add for a long time that has been repeatedly shut down for being unencyclopaedic. Finally, you say that your edit was "a good-faith edit and not vandalism", but it honestly came across as the kind of "well-intentioned but essentially vandalism" that I have to deal with a lot from unregistered or new users who think they know what they are doing just because the article is about their favourite TV show. So, I honestly don't feel all that bad about apparently hurting your feelings here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Fury's Big Week

But it's not like the column takes up alot of space or squashes the other info or anything. There's also nothing that says that the other issues can't be reviewed in the future and have their information added as well. Why would it need to be removed? I don't think it looks silly.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The amount of space the column takes up is irrelevant. If it needed to be there, then we could deal with it regardless of whether it squashed the info or not, but it doesn't need to be there because it only applies to a single row in the entire column. If it was important information that we didn't have anywhere else then sure, maybe, but it is already elsewhere in the article. There is no good reason to have it there again. That could change if, like you say, the other issues get reviews in the future. But that hasn't happened yet, so there is no point trying to deal with it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it's useless, I think it's good to see which issue received the rating clearly and easily like that, but ok I guess.★Trekker (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

MCU cast tables

Hey Adam, hope you've been well. This is in regards to this revert as well as the others on other MCU TV series pages. I didn't realize/recall the issue of cast listing order had been over before. Now that you mention it I vaguely remember it, but I couldn't find a discussion for it on any of the individual MCU TV series pages. Can you point me to where this was? It seems very strange to me that we wouldn't adhere to how WP:TVCAST works. I'm assuming the argument was that all of the episodes were released at once, but I'll save that for when there's a discussion I can open or restart. Thank you!

I'm sure this was discussed somewhere around these articles, but I can't find where that initial discussion was. However, it was extensively discussed in this discussion. The people taking issue with the ordering eventually gave up / lost interest I think, and the listings were left as is. In short, the argument that I and several others had here was that the ordering given in TVCAST is to remove any ambiguities—we don't know what order the producers intended to give, so we should just go off what it shows onscreen and if anything new is added visually, then we should take that as a completely new addition on the list—but these Netflix series are a slightly different case, where the producer's desired order is more clear. By this, I mean that it is obvious if you look at each of the onscreen credit listings for a single season that there is one ordering used for every episode, they just miss out some names sometimes if those actors are not in the specific episode. This makes sense because the season is completed before any episodes are shown, so we know that Rosario Dawson was always intended to be listed before Vincent D'Onofrio in the Daredevil credits because her introduction to the series was set long before the first episode was released. In a broadcast series we would not assume anything there, and just add Dawson after all the first episode cast, but here it seems safe to interpret it as Dawson being in that position in the credits all along but we did not see her name there for that first episode. So, we think it does not violate the spirit of TVCAST to list the full season's ordering, even if it does not reflect that certain actors were not visually credited until later episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

X-Men: Dark Phoenix

Hello Adamstom.97! Great work done on the draft, I just saw the news 1 and 2, and the first news says that the "X-Men: Dark Phoenix is currently filming." So probably we should move the draft to mainspace now. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for filming having started already, but it is predicted to begin tomorrow so we should be able to move it soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

According to http://www.actramontreal.ca/whats-shooting/ filming has already begin under the working title of team spirit. That's why I created the article, not knowing that you already created a excellent draft for it.--Jockzain (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I've added that source (I was expecting filming to begin today anyway) and will get the draft moved over to the mainspace now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Deadpool (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Deadpool (film) 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 Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Adamstom.97. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 12:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw you had a few messages above regarding other editors questioning your reverts - there is nothing wrong with those conversations. Keep in mind that using the automated rollback feature does not allow for an edit summary - so only use it for actual vandalism. So long as you continue to use twinkle reversion/undo/etc for any content-related reversions there should be no problem related to rollback. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks xaos! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Deadpool (film)

The article Deadpool (film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Deadpool (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Adam. 'Grats on the new user rights. Have you ever thought about applying for the page mover right? I think you'd be the perfect editor to require and use it, what with all the work you do in the draftspace, and moving those drafts to the mainspace, you could easily do it yourself without the wait. Just a thought. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:32, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and applied for it when I had to ask you guys to do a move for me twice in a short time. On that, I was wondering what exactly to do if I was to get the right. Do you always just do a round-robin move to get drafts into the mainspace? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't mind being asked at all! I don't see why they wouldn't grant it to you. And if the article name exists in both namespaces (draft and main), then yes, a round-robin is all that's necessary. Moving the mainspace title to Draft:Move/{title}, moving the draft to the mainspace, then moving Draft:Move/{title} back to draft and changing the redirect target. All with the redirect creation suppressed. -- Alex^TW 07:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks Alex - adamstom97 (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Alex, asking you about page mover rights. And to add to what he said, yes draft moves are generally round robin moves. And then once you complete (with redirect suppression), you can use twinkle to add the R2 speedy delete template to the now existing redirect from the draft name to the mainspace (R2 is for cross namespace redirects, which in this case are not allowed). If you are granted the rights and have questions on the process, let us know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I've been told otherwise about namespace redirects... Given that R2 is actually only for the mainspace to other namespaces, there was some massive RfC discussion a while back that ended up with the result of allowing redirects from the draft space to the mainspace. I'll see if I can find a link for it. -- Alex^TW 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: That'd be great, because I was unaware of that, and I'd like to read up on what was discussed if I could. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't remember for the life of me where it was, only that it existed, so I've asked at the village pump to see if anyone can help provide a link. -- Alex^TW 03:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 135#Draft Namespace Redirects -- Alex^TW 04:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Page_mover

Hi there. Your page mover user right is granted. Happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 16:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Homecoming

Saw you edit the plot so I assume you've seen it. What did you think? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't been that excited for it, felt the trailers were pretty average, but I thought the film was really great and very funny. I also did not see the big twist coming and thought that was really well done. A bit confused with this "8 Years Later" thing, but I think there must be an explanation for it since Watts has talked about looking at the big timeline that Marvel Studios keeps. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I really enjoyed it as well. I thought it was by far the best Spider-Man film since Raimi's second one. And I thought it was super funny too. The twist took me by surprise, but not as much as it should, since I knew going in about the Michelle rumor, so it dampened it a bit for me. The 8 years thing threw me too. That seems like way too much time, because Civil War was in early 2016, so the main plot line of this would put it in late 2016 for the Homecoming dance. That then makes the Avengers happening in 2008 which I don't think was correct, because Iron Man 3 is set in 2013, a year after the Avengers. If it said 4 years on the screen, it would have been super believable. Also, can we talk about the potential suit? I lost it see it that. It reminds me of the one being used for the 2018 video game. I really, really, really want it to appear in Infinity War because I loved it. I kind of knew he wouldn't take it though because Holland had said in an interview that the Infinity War suit was the same as the Homecoming one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I figured when they were making it out to be Avenger or high school, but not both, that he would choose to go back to high school. I think there's a good chance he'll get that suit in Infinity War though. For the timeline, I think The Avengers may officially be a bit earlier than 2012, and Homecoming a bit later than now, and so the 8 years works on the timeline, but the other films haven't really been following that. Could be an instance of these guys trying harder to slot into the timeline and connect things up than Marvel generally does. Hopefully someone gives us a proper explanation soon that at least sort of makes sense. The big thing is that it feels wrong, and threw me off for part of the movie. In general Marvel seems to be playing it a bit looser with Phase 3, since Doctor Strange also jumped around the timeline a bit and Vol. 2 was set in the past, and who knows what is going to happen with the movies between the next two Avengers, and then Homecoming 2 is supposed to start just after then but also be one year after this... - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I also felt they missed a great opportunity to have Stan Lee's cameo recreate the Amazing Fantasy 15 cover. That would have been perfect, but probably too on the nose. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Agent Carter (film)

On 12 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agent Carter (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Neal McDonough's appearance in the Marvel One-Shot short Agent Carter was supposed to be filmed in a pool, but could not because of the muscle suit he wore to portray Dum Dum Dugan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agent Carter (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agent Carter (film)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Inhumans IMAX

Just wanted you to know that I started in my sandbox a draft for the two episodes that will be the IMAX release of Inhumans. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, and agree that it is going to be the best way to approach this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If the episodes are not named "Title (Part 1)" and "Title (Part 2)", what do you think the article title should be? I'm currently using Inhumans: The First Chapter because of the marketing, but that isn't really a correct or actual name. I was thinking Inhumans (film), but that might get tricky. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also unsure about that. Perhaps "Inhumans (premiere)"? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Potentially. Though it is encouraging that Futon is listing the episodes with one title (so it might not be as much of an issue as I thought), though that can obviously change between now and when the press release is out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, do you intend for this article to be a double episode article that mentions the IMAX stuff, or more of a special/TV movie type thing that then talks about the episode split as well? Just in terms of what formatting we use. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by the two options you gave me to clarify, so I'll try to explain myself and hopefully that answers your question. I was hoping to have the article cover both 101 and 102 of the series (ie like S.O.S. (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)), with the layout a mashup of the formatting we use for MCU episode articles and films. So I'm envisioning these sections: Plot, Cast and characters, Production, Release and Reception. Cast and characters will be formatted like a season article, with main and guest stars. Production would include Development, Writing, Casting, Design, Filming, Visual effects and MCU tie-ins for both episodes. Release covers the IMAX and broadcast info and marketing, while Reception will include the IMAX box office number, the ABC broadcast viewer info, and the critical reception. I hope that answers your question. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so an episode article for the two episodes, but with some film stuff added. I was getting a little confused because it has an episode article infobox but we don't usually have the extra cast and characters stuff. I think we are on the same page now. In a similar vein, I've been thinking about Most Wanted (TV pilot) and potentially nominating it for GA. I wasn't sure whether that article is supposed to be about the single pilot episode or the potential series. I feel like it should be the former since the pilot actually exists, with an infobox sort of like this (I just based it on the one you have for the Inhumans premiere). - adamstom97 (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that seems right. I was confused, because I'm not seeing it as "an episode article for the two episodes, but with some film stuff added", because the film stuff is essentially the episodes too. It's all very confusing ha. I think nominating Most Wanted is a good idea. I feel the article as we have it now is the correct formatting (similarly to Aquaman (TV pilot)), and generally is all in relation to the pilot because not much was known about the potential series, just some wishful thinking, but again, in relation to what was happening in the pilot. Also, the TV episode infobox is not the best to include all the elements we need, and I feel we shouldn't be making a "custom" one as I did with Inhumans. And a general "state of nominations" thing, we still have the TV cast at FL review, and there are those outstanding comments about reformatting all the tables I think we should look into. And if we wanted to work on Item 47 and All Hail the King, we could get the One-Shots to a Good Topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I've given Most Wanted a c/e but not made too many major structural changes. I know a lot of these pages just have a line in production about the pilot being passed on, but we have a whole paragraph that comes before talk about the potential series, which seemed weird enough to split that paragraph off to its own section. Let me know what you think and whether you want to just go ahead and nominate the article for GA straight away. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. Good find on those additional actors and production people. I can go either way on keeping the passing of the pilot in "Development" or its own subsection. I think we can nominate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Bucky not in Black Panther

I didn't add that Bucky-not-appearing-in-BP source for gossip. Just as something to look out for in case Marvel explains why they didn't use Bucky in BP, even though the mid-credits scene in Civil War shows him being given asylum in Wakanda. I was sure they would explain why, and in this situation Favre would say, "this is something to look out for". Because even if sources are archived, they may be difficult to retrace. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I probably wouldn't have said that in this situation, because there was never any indication he was supposed to be in the film, only conjecture and wishful thinking based on how Civil War ended. That wasn't an automatic "he must be in BP now". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I offended Kailash, it just came across as very forum-y, like "here is some news, I wish Marvel would explain it" sort of thing that we get from some of the IP-editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Adam, you are forgiven. Besides, I wasn't offended, so don't feel bad. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Iron Fist

Season 2 was just announced at SDCC, so that means we can probably split off a Season 1 article and a LoC. I'm made redirects for both seasons at the moment and will make additions of info from the panel across our existing articles before diving into making splits and the season 2 draft. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's too much!! Haha I'm still trying to get through all the news from yesterday, but I'll have a look at what we have for Iron Fist soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I know! Well now they're showing THE ENTIRE FIRST EPISODE of Defenders, so we have at least 45 mins of no news. I'm gonna get a jump start on stuff, probably with the splits (characters first). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, keep me posted. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

LoC created List of Iron Fist characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Do you have the ability to start sandboxing a s1 article? If not, no worries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I just got through all the Star Trek stuff I was working on from yesterday, so I'll start working on the season split now. I'll let you know when I am done. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know how I can help (with a ping). I'm covering the remaining panel info and working on the new cast members from the Defenders trailer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I've done the split in my sandbox, the new main article and the season article. There is an issue with the episode table transclusion, but I think that will sort itself out when we move to the mainspace. The references will also need to be sorted out after the move (the sandbox doesn't give the helpful hints of what is missing or not being used, so I thought I'd leave it till we got those). Unless you have any issues with my split, I guess we can just go ahead and make those changes. I also saw the draft for season 2. On another note, I think we should keep the mentions of where characters go on to appear in the LoC pages. If you are reading about a character, I think it is useful to know that they have also appeared in another show, which seems significant even though I know it happens quite a bit with these shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me take a look right now at the splits, but I trust you did a fine job! I'll let you know with another reply ASAP. I'm fine with adding back in the "going on" notes, we just need to do it with everyone, and I noticed it was really only Dawson and Ho on the Daredevil page (hence a reason I decided to remove for now). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We can go back later and make sure we get everyone. I am starting to go through my watchlist now and see that you have been pretty busy, and we haven't even had the big movie panel yet! - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Looks good on the splits! If you want to make those splits happen, I'm going to get to uploading the S1 poster. Then I can help with post-split clean up on season 1 article (ie the refs and any small things), if you want to handle the main one so we don't conflict with each other. Sounds good on the "going on" plan. And yup, I've been doing a lot haha. Tomorrow will be another long one. Related, but not, I'm going to reformat on the TV series actors page the Netflix table as we talked about (doing 2015-2017 releases, etc.) and a reformat on the TV series recurring cast section, to that Netflix table to be like the films one, by "franchise", as that is also getting big. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do those splits now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93:  Done If you handle the season article, I'll sort out the main page. And the transclusion stuff has sorted itself like I thought it would. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

For the great teamwork today and always in getting the seemingly endless train of MCU news added where it needs to in the articles. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Good job on all the split editing. Thanks for undertaking that! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Back at you! It's great that we can work together on these things when we are being swamped like this. I'm pretty busy at uni at the moment, so it is good to have a break over the weekend and try and get on top of everything here now. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Totally. We can figure out how to best handle tomorrow before the panel starts, and see if Richie or Triiiple will be on so we aren't editing over each other. I'll be online watching a live blog of it, similar to tonight, and ready to add stuff here as it happens. Luckily I doubt we'll be getting any new properties, only info on what we know, so it will at least be contained a bit to those related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The Good Article Nominations Page Needs Your Help!

Good Articles: Film needs the help of willing reviewers!

Hi there. You nominated an article for evaluation against the good article criteria some time ago, but I noticed you have yet to review an article yourself. Although it's not mandatory, it would be helpful if every user who creates a nomination also reviewed at least one other article, as this would help clear the massive backlog. Reviewing someone else's article can also help you in the long run: every article reviewed brings yours one position closer to the top of the nominations list! If you worked on the article you nominated, chances are you're already familiar with the six good article criteria. It really isn't hard to review, and may take an experienced editor only a few hours to complete. If you have the time and would like to help, please click here, take a moment to figure out which article you'd like to review, then click on its (start review) button. Thank you for reading, and if you need assistance with your review at any point, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'll respond to you as soon as I can. Slightlymad (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

TV series cast FL review

This is stemming from what I said above in the Inhumans IMAX section, but I wanted to start a new discussion. I've reformatted the ABC table in my sandbox here to be similar to what you did to the Arrowverse one. This may be what the user who proposed the reformat was suggesting, but I personally don't think this is a good format because it is essentially "dumb" versions of the respective list of characters articles. Just wanted your thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While I don't think this is bad, especially for AoS since it has so many seasons now, I don't think it is necessary. If anything, I feel the Netflix table could probably be split up considering how much we are cramming into it at the moment. The whole situation is one that I am a bit unsure about. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Let me take the time to do the same for the Netflix series and we can see what we feel about this all as a whole. Then I'll go back to the FL review to continue the discussion, based on what we feel (linking back to this discussion here as to not seem like we're hiding anything). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have done the same to the Netflix series, which I really do not like (that one was good as it was in my opinion). I would, however, not be opposed to splitting off the 2018 release to a new table to make it a new "phase" as it were, to keep it manageable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to make a response in the review regarding this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that split up Netflix table is good. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

MCU

I wasn't trying to edit war, I was just trying to make the abbreviations more consistent with other abbreviations and eliminate any potential confusion among the Wikipedia community as the abbreviation used also stands for Service Marked a commonly used and widely recognized trademark. To eliminate this potential problem I have created a page called Spider-Man in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I invite to contribute to.MitchellLunger (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to take this issue and your newly created article to Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films where others can see it. And I've never heard of Service Marked but I find unlikely that somebody will think we are talking about that given the abbreviation template makes it clear that we are talking about Spider-Man. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

If you would like to know what a service mark is, what's it's used and why you may have used it without knowing of it I highly recommend visiting this article https://www.thebalance.com/trademarks-and-service-marks-397829MitchellLunger (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No Good Deed (2017 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No Good Deed (2017 film) 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 Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No Good Deed (2017 film)

The article No Good Deed (2017 film) 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:No Good Deed (2017 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. The article is almost ready for promotion, I just have a couple more remaining points. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No Good Deed (2017 film)

The article No Good Deed (2017 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No Good Deed (2017 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Defenders recurring characters

I just wanted to run by you what you thought of maybe having the "recurring" distinction mean 3 episodes, instead of 4, since it is only 8 episodes. I think we'll have to see what the numbers are for the characters, but it might be worthwhile considering given the shorter length of the season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with starting at 3 and seeing who we get. We did 3 for Agent Carter and I did 3 for Legion and those both turned out about right. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

We did do 3 for Carter? I thought we had kept that at 4. Regardless, yeah that sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we didn't do 3 for AC, but we must have talked about it as I do remember something along those lines coming up. But anyway, we'll quickly figure out whether it is working or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the hidden notes on the Agent Carter seasons do say 4. But yes, the main point was just seeing if you'd be open as well to considering 3 eps for Defenders, which you are, so we're all good for Friday! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On another note, you've probably seen that I've been working on a few articles lately pushing for GA. I'm still pretty busy at the moment, but when I have time I will try to polish off the season 1 articles for Luke Cage and Iron Fist, which I don't think will take much. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I'm fine pushing for Luke Cage, but just wonder if we should let Iron Fist breathe a bit more and give it some more time, since we only created the article a couple weeks ago. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There is still a bit I think we should do with it first, so I wouldn't worry about actually nominating it until we're both happy. Just letting you know my intentions if you see me doing more stuff with them over the next while. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sounds good! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Osborn

Thank you on the heads up for what needs to be done on Norman Osborn I have been working on it for a while now and believe it is good article material. I hope I can everything done by Tuesday, hopefully others will come and help out too, always best working with a team. Take care and I'll give you a heads up when everything is all good.Xtremeroller (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries, just take your time and work through it. You can let me know at Talk:Norman Osborn/GA2 if you want, and can respond to individual points there if needs be. Good luck. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I gave you my word. I am done with Norman Osborn. I'll explain more at Talk:Norman Osborn/GA2. Xtremeroller (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Most Wanted (TV pilot)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Most Wanted (TV pilot) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Most Wanted (TV pilot)

The article Most Wanted (TV pilot) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Most Wanted (TV pilot) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you, thank you so much! All that hard work finally paid off, thank so much Adam. You've been a good friend, than you. Xtremeroller (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Inhumans IMAX

I was hoping to create the article that's in my sandbox for the IMAX release this week, hopefully waiting on a title and info from Futon Critic. If that doesn't come by Thursday, what do you think the article name should be until that info is revealed? I was thinking Inhumans (IMAX film), Pilot (Inhumans), Episode 1 (Inhumans), or Inhumans: The First Chapter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If we don't get the title, then I'd be happy to use Inhumans: The First Chapter for now. I think the middle two are a bit presumptive without some sort of source, and I don't know if (IMAX film) is entirely accurate. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Let's plan on that. If a press release for the episodes isn't up by mid-day Thursday (before the preview showings), I'll move the info to Inhumans: The First Chapter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I realized tomorrow afternoon before the screenings start might not be the best for me, so I'm going to work on moving the sandbox content to the mainspace in the coming hour, just an FYI. I'll also look to see what from the main article can be removed, given the new article we are creating, as I'm sure you will as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Complete. I felt some of the excessive doubling was in the marketing sections, and simplified the info at the main page. I think we did a good job copying items in the production versus what was specific to both articles, but it wouldn't hurt to give what we have in both a look over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is all looking pretty good. I have been trying to get the split right over the last few days anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Most Wanted (TV pilot)

On 7 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Most Wanted (TV pilot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after ABC passed on the television pilot Marvel's Most Wanted in May 2015, it was reworked, only to be passed on again the following May? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Most Wanted (TV pilot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Most Wanted (TV pilot)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe

My edits at Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe were explained in my edit summaries. "generally shrink navbox; grpw to 6em, wlink TV, create TV series subgroup Other for single subgroups & digital series". This in the purpose of navboxes to be compact as possible to aid in viewing. Please actually look for reasons before reverting. Starting an edit war because you can not seem to look at history/edit summary is poor form. --Spshu (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise, that was my mistake. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Now.

Your continued reverts on The Gifted (TV series) are going to get you blocked, and if you think thatuse the lame-ass excuse of WP:STATUSQUO is going to save you, it won't. At all. You have been reverted by two editors, and asked to contribute to discussion. That removes any justification for reverting.
I'd STRONGLY urge you to use the discussion page, because you aren't going to like what happens if you revert again. Don't test me on this, bud. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I have very little patience for personal attacks on my own talk page, "bud". I have clearly already responded to you at the talk page discussion you started, so kindly direct your rage in that direction. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle at the Bianary Stars

I'm not sure why one has to click on "Tonight on Space" to see the weekly listings ... and why there isn't a direct URL. But if you do, and scroll to Friday it clearly says "Battle at the Bianary Stars". Or at least it does here in Toronto. Here's an image of what I see in Chrome. I wish I could figure out a better link. Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with the source for the episode 103/104 air dates. It's pretty clear. And it's what we all suspect, (and what I've heard on the street - which is of course unusable). Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If we wait, we should get a better source with a direct URL shortly. And the problem with 103 and 104 is that the dates alone are not enough to warrant showing the rows. We already have the dates there, but need some other info like the title or director before we reveal the row. This helps ensure that we don't just have a big table with not very much in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why wait, the information is clear? Not sure why one needs title or director to reveal the row; can you direct me to a link for that rule? Also, I'm not sure which website is better than the station that broadcasts it first; the biggest media company in the nation. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hang on, I think I figured out the problem with the schedule. Are you in New Zealand? The Space website adjusts automatically, to show what time it airs in your computer's time zone. If I change the time zone on my computer from GMT-4 (North American Eastern Daylight Time) to GMT+12 (New Zealand Standard Time), it now shows the second episode airing at 2:30 PM on Monday September 25 (and repeating at 6:30 pm). Website is too smart for it's own good! Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If somebody needs instructions to find the information from the link provided, then it isn't a good source. And there is obviously issues going on with different time zones. Soon enough there will be a source that just gives the information normally, and we can use that. And I'm not sure if that rule is written anywhere, but it is definitely the common practice. If you take issue with it then perhaps bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it complicated? Second episode premieres 21:30 GMT-4. Just check the title in whatever that is in your local time zone. It's not speculation. I've linked an image for anyone who can't figure it out - though surely people are used to changing time zones in their head in this day and age. But why does most even need to do this - it's a reference - most people aren't going to look at it. Often references aren't even on line ... and that's perfectly allowable! Too difficult to explain is how I got the episode 3 title - Context is for Kings :). I've never seen such drama over a simple confirmable episode title before - Trekkies! Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's complicated because when I click on the link, the information you are sourcing is not there! I think that is a pretty obvious problem. We are in WP:NORUSH anyway. It's not a big deal if it isn't up right at this moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not there if you look at 2:30 pm on Monday September 25th? What does it say then? There's no Discovery episodes listed all day? Perhaps some strange geoblock. No rush - but I don't think it's a big deal that it IS up either. It's verifiable and not WP:Crystal. Nfitz (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I just get a standard news page, no mention of episode titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps there's something wrong with your browser? It's the entire week's TV listings for the station. (well 2 weeks really). On the top line of the website it says "Tonight on Space˅". When you press that, a grid of the entire weeks listings drops down; days on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis. Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm in Canada, and I can't find the Tonight on Space link either. /tv doesn't display a schedule. Does this require Flash? Reach Out to the Truth 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Reach Out to the Truth: Yes, I think it's flash based. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

...and now we have a better source! Sometimes you just have to have a bit of patience in these situations. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The better source, that finally kept it, was simply a blog that used the source I'd originally put in there as the proof, and you deleted. It's since changed to that very good source. What an odd microcosm of editing this is. I only jumped in because I was trying to figure out what the permanent timeslot it was airing in on Space. (Which I couldn't 100% peg down from the Internet, but ironically I walked past a transit shelter today with big poster saying 8 pm Sundays. Which is interesting, as as far as I can tell, CBS All Access doesn't release it until 8:30 pm Sundays; I'm not sure what they gain by holding onto it so late. But it's a new media, I don't fully have my head around.) And I noticed that Space and Tele Z had information not showing up. Hmm, and more now. Let's see how this flies ... :) Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Le Vulcain 'Allo

Regarding your edit summary we should just wait for the episode to come out. See MOS:TV for more on these guidelines.

Actually I did read that, in particular WP:TVPLOT and also MOS:PLOT and Template:Episode list and I saw nothing about timing. Reading again, and digging deeper, the most recent relevant discussion I can find is WT:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Requesting clarification about episode synopses and copyrights which indicates that it's fine to be in advance, and even fine to quote a short one directly, if in advance. I don't see how what I did violates this. Or is there something more recent, or a guideline, I've missed. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Though now, given what exists in The Vulcan Hello since you reverted, the whole thing seem moot, so I have reverted. Whether the text and source should be different is another question, but I haven't seen another text source (perhaps it's in that infernal CBS video that is ironically geolocked so it won't play in Toronto). Nfitz (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the MOS explicitly discourages that practice somewhere, because it is something that is reverted in every TV article I watch, but I'm not entirely sure where it says it. Either way, it is another case of NORUSH where we will get the actual episode soon enough anyway. And thank you for bringing my attention to the separate episode article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. Normally I wouldn't bother, but as the only episode description I could come across was in French, and on a pretty obscure website for any anglophones, I thought I'd toss it in, given the obvious great interest (at least around here). Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I did warn you. I wish you had chosen to discuss instead of trying to shoehorn your pet version back in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Going to AN3 seems like overkill, especially given that first revert was Saturday evening, the second revert was much later that night, the third and fourth reverts were Monday evening (at least for North America east coast). So 4 reverts in over 48 hours, but only 2 in first 47 hours, and only 2 in the last 41 hours. If you were arguing about a big issue in the article, maybe ... but you are pretty much arguing about whether to include a particular footnote or not (I'd certainly footnote such information if it I felt it should be there if in book format), and such a minor point it is. And you don't even disagree about the content of the text itself! Surely simply talking it out at talk is a better approach, and perhaps getting wider consensus. Sorry to butt in, but I was editing something else here, and I wondered if this was relating to a previous disagreement I was involved in (no).Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It was about trying to edit in a fanboy crush, and it was pretty friggin' obvious that it was happening.

Part II

The source does not say what you are trying to cherry-pick it to say. I've edited it to more accurately the sources? Disagree? Use the discussion page, as your Bold edit was reverted. Now discuss. If you keep reverting, I will have zero problem returning this discussion to the noticeboard. I am asking you, politely, to discuss instead of reverting. It is your choice how you wish to proceed; I am simply telling you that you've already got two strikes, as far as I am concerned. The racial comments do not help your cause. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have gone to the talk page, and I have not been racist, so again, what the hell are you on about? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And I appreciate your return to discussion, Adamstom 9. The racist bit was that most readers might not be able to tell Fan Bingbing from Jamie Chung..."confused" was the word you used. Most people in films are recast in series - the examples of such would fill your talk page, and I am sure you can think of many of them. Maybe you didn't intend to suggest that the casual reader can't tell one Asian woman from another, but that is how it came across.

The point is, (for whatever reason) you really wanted Fan Bingbing in the article, and you kinda twisted a lot of sources to make that happen. That's what the discussion is focusing on now. She didn't get the role because of Fan; she got it because of the same widening diversity of precursor series and movies that allowed both Chung and Fan to get cast in a series. My edit addresses that reality, reflected in the source that you yourself added. I'm happy to discuss this further with you in the article discussion, but I felt you had the right to know what the main point of the discussion was going to be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page with an explanation for the comment that you perceived as racist. And stop with the "you really wanted Fan Bingbing in the article" nonsense. That is a childish and incorrect argument. If I didn't feel that the content should be in the article for a good reason then I wouldn't be arguing for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Why did you rename sources on The Vulcan Hello? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Because most of them were already named like that in other articles, and also because it is a bit easier when the sources have recognisable/descriptive names when you are using them multiple times in an article. Nothing personal. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, nor did I take it personally. I don't know that I agree with your rationale but it's worth understanding at the very least. Thanks for improving the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Deadpool 2

My issue with the passage you reverted is that it almost is entirely based around announcements of things to come. For instance you could easily just put when the filming started once it does, or when the draft was completed and have a better artcle, In fact, when the draft is completed itself is probably irrelevant in the long run. --Deathawk (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but the development section is different from some of the other sections in that it is about tracking the development of the film over time (sometimes for years). So while we might later alter the filming section to say when filming actually took place, for example, it is still noteworthy when we learned of things in the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If this was a case where the shooting date was constantly changing or whatever, I could see the relevance, however the fact is that in 2016 someone said that it'd shoot in early 2017, it ended up shooting in 2017, that's just repetitive. Also it doesn't really say anything about the development, it just looks, from the outside like we, as editors jumped the gun, and we forgot to clean it up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The whole point was to give an indication of how far along in production they were at that time. I would agree that it was a problem if we had been adding similar updates every week or so, which would just be silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

My main issue I guess is that we've been running into production sections that have been over done, where every little thing would be reported on and stuff and it would just be this insane hassle to read it, let alone edit it down to a manageable level. So my eye kinda twitched when it saw that whole passage. Your argument makes sense, but I would suggest that you may just want to edit it out anyway just to make it more concise, but that's just my opinion. --Deathawk (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree that a lot of production sections get out of hand, and I have personally been guilty of creating unnecessarily big production sections. I still think this specific instance is fine, but I'll be giving the whole section a c/e at some point which is always helped by hindsight in cutting some of these things, or removing some unnecessary weight. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

NYCC

Hey, just wanted to let you know I'll be at NYCC again this year. Hoping to attend the Runaways panel Friday night, and then AoS and Punisher on Saturday. As in previous years, I can assist in info clarification, if needed, per whatever is revealed at the panels. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realise that was this week! I will keep a look out and try my best to help, but may be a bit busy this time. Enjoy! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you have a good camera try and get some good pics!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it is! Honestly, knowing the planned panels and their lengths, we'll be getting the first episode(s) of Runaways on Friday, and most likely the first episode of Punisher on Saturday. And as rumors have been going around, most likely the release date of Punisher too if they don't just dead drop release it Saturday after the panel. That's just a bit of an idea for you guys to know what to expect. @TriiipleThreat: Sadly I'll only have my iPhone camera on me. Depending on where I'm able to get seats for all the panels if I get in to them, I'll see what pics I can get. I'll also try and get the C&D pop up "experience" that is happening outside the convention hall, and any installations the Marvel booth may have that are relevant to the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat: They did end up showing the first episode of Runaways tonight. I unfortunately was not able to get any cast pictures at the panel, but did get photos of the Runaways and Cloak & Dagger installations at the Con. I enjoyed the episode. If either of you wanted to know anything about it, I'll be happy to answer questions if I can remember. But I'm definitely excited for November 21 to arrive. And as you may or may not see from the article, I uploaded a new image, because the title card used at the end of the official trailer was the one from the episode, and I added additional EPs from my memory of the opening credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw that you added some spoilerish stuff to the article just before, so I've decided to take it off my watchlist even though it is still a little way off, as I am quite excited to see it clean when it comes out. I'll still probably drop in with bits in pieces before then though. I have also taken off Ragnarok and the film lists since it is premiering today. I should be seeing it in a couple weeks. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Fictional characters

How is Michael Burnham not a fictional character? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

She is a fictional person, yes, but she is a real character. The character exists, even if the person does not. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any such thing as a "fictional character" then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose a character created for something that doesn't exist, like a fictional movie? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure just saying character is enough. The fictional feels redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

If I were to say, "Boy, that Kim Jong-Un is a real character", I would not be saying that he is a figment of someone's imagination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a different use of the word "character". It's honestly not a big deal, it just bugs me as being wrong and unnecessary, kinda like people saying "ATM machine". - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Filemover granted

Hello Adamstom.97. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex Shih^Talk 00:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gifted (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your reverts

Adamstom.97, you continue to revert edits done on the New Mutants page without stating why you do so. User:DisneyMetalhead among others have made slight changes that make sense - complete ideas and use proper classifications. You cannot simply revert edits without stating your reasoning. If you disagree go to the talk-page. The edit I just reverted was simply due to the fact that a singular member of the X-Men is not in an context an "X-Man" as you keep reverting it to. X-Man is an actual character's name. Just like members of the Justice League are not "a Justice League" -- they're a member of the Justice League; so it is the same with the X-Men team.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I know longer explain my reverts because I have done so that many times already. When people are just constantly making bad edits, it is vandalism and I am not going to pander to those people. As for the X-Men/X-Man thing, I have still not heard a good argument against that. If a group of people are X-Men, then one of them is an X-Man, just the same as the Avengers, where a single member is an Avenger, or a group of policemen, where a single officer is a policeman. That is just how English works. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97, you're still wrong there. Nathaniel Grey / X-Man is the character. To be specific and technically correct, you cannot state that Colossus is an X-Man as never are they called an "X-Man" in the movies nor in the comics. They're a member of a team called the X-Men. As for not citing nor explaining your edits, when all the edits I have done are constructive and goes right in line with the fact that the premise says FIVE young mutants, stating that Magik is a mutant is not 'vandalism' as you state above^. Otherwise you fall into WP:OWN-ing behaviors, by seeing your edits as the only valid ones.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Adam is correct. A single member of the X-Men is called an X-Man as seen here by X-Men editor Nick Lowe: "‘A+X’ is going to follow up with that, and we’re going to have an Avenger and an X-Man on each team.”--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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:The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire

The article Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire 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:Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockup (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lockup (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Good Samaritan (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Good Samaritan (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Ghost (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire

The article Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Let Me Stand Next to Your Fire for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Uprising (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meet the New Boss (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lockup (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article Lockup (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lockup (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Good Samaritan (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

The article The Good Samaritan (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Good Samaritan (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. prokaryotes (talk) 10:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that's just childish. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thor: Ragnarok

Hey. Just wanted you to know I'm seeing the film Sunday and will be back to watching and editing the article then. I looked at your contributions and saw you are editing it, which I'm glad to know it isn't a total disaster. I have a bunch of articles I've been back logging to add info to the article. Hopefully you've seen some of them and added it, but if not, there will (hopefully) be a large expansion tomorrow. Also don't know what the box office section is looking like, but can work it/adjust as I've done with recently with other MCU articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, have fun. I'm not sure about the box office section and haven't dealt with the critical response section yet either, but I think I have a good handle on the rest. I've already added some of the recent articles that jave come out, but I'm sure there'll be some stuff for you to deal with then. (P.S. just to show the silliness of the distribution model and also my enjoyment of the film, I have already seen it twice). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's so insane. I get wanting to get an extra leg in the international market, but waiting the extra weekend is killer here. But conversely, has Inhumans debuted for you yet? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I get the ABC shows same day as the US, but I know a lot of places don't, and the Arrowverse shows for this season don't debut here until next year. It is really random. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted (TV series)

What exactly was wrong with my edits?.109.146.144.51 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You linked something to the article for something else. The Sentinel Services are not Sentinels themselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. That makes sense. So what was wrong with my first edit?.109.146.144.51 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration carries different connotations than what we saw in the episode. He was seen working with the Sentinel Services, but saying that they were collaborating is a bit much. He was hardly completely on board with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits at Thor

I'm not sure why you are ignoring my comments in previous edits, but perhaps it's because you haven't seen them. I have restored many of the changes. Please address what it is you disagree with on the article's talk page, but a wholesale revert of my edit is uncalled for without discussion. I will assume good faith that this was unintentional on your part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not trying to ignore your comments. It is hard to address them all when there is 10, 20, or more edits since I last looked that need to be sorted out. I have retained some of your changes in my most recent edit, but there are some of your changes that I am against, including the unnecessary change of format to the first paragraph, which is consistent with the other film articles (and I see no good reason to break with that pattern now); your use of "the following October", when we are talking about the October of the same year not the next one; saying "in 3D, IMAX, and IMAX 3D formats", which sounds grammatically weird; "has been referred to as" sounds unnecessarily vague and poses the question of 'referred to as by whom?' rather than directly attributing the claim to the positive reviews; not stating that it is Waititi's direction, even though that is implied, because the critics were very specific about who they attributed the film's success to so I think we should be as well; and saying "musical score" instead of music, when the critics were praising both the score and the use of the "Immigrant Song" in the film, and music covers both of those. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, "score" was present in the article before I touched it. My reversion placed it back in by mistake. I've considered some of your objections, and I appreciate that you've implemented some of the changes, but there are still some issues that I've addressed on the talk page. Feel free to weigh in there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ant Man

I don't really want to get into an edit war here, but the wording you reverted makes very little sense in the context. It is at the end of two paragraphs talking about how the film came about, it makes no sense, to suddenly then try to summarize. Also as I alluded too, the description is a copyright violation from here, In addition to both of those problems we have a lead section and a plot section which detail what the film is about for those that are intrested. No one who reads this far is going to be in the dark about what the film is about. --Deathawk (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The information you randomly deleted is not summary information, it is new information not yet discussed (the lead does not count, since that is supposed to summarise the article body). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My main concern was deleting the summary, which, like I discussed was awkwardly worded. In doing so I tried to reword the other information in the surrounding sentances to make it work, which can be summed up as "Marvel hired Wright" --Deathawk (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

But you removed more than just the official hiring of Wright. If your problem is with the wording of that summary, then deal with that and not just everything around it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, there was more, but it didn't really say that much. The bulk of the important info can be summed up with what how I put it. --Deathawk (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spider-Man: Homecoming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spider-Man: Homecoming 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 Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Film MOS

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS regarding proposed guidelines for production sections. You can vote on it here Thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spider-Man: Homecoming

The article Spider-Man: Homecoming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Adamstom.97. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor cont'd

Thought I'd give you a heads up there was a recent discussion at MOS:FILM (link) in an attempt to clarify best wording of the RT statement. I can understand that in a recently released film, the date can be omitted if that's your preference, but other changes and enhancements were made based on input from multiple editors. If you don't agree with these, I recommend starting a new thread there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that discussion, and it specifically applies to films released before Rotten Tomatoes existed, so it doesn't apply to this film. Also, the specific wording used for this statement is highly debated at articles like this, so I think major changes should be discussed with that in mind, in case a change needs to be made across several articles. But again, the discussion you have linked to is not applicable in this situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the discussion beginning over other concerns, editors did weigh in on how they felt the RT statement should be phrased. Adding the date at the beginning of the statement is the only part that pertains to the pre-RT discussion. The rest of the statement can apply to any film. Some of the concerns raised, such as this one, have nothing to do with pre-RT films. I'm not going to go through articles changing it to this format for the sake of doing so, but I think there's a good reason to avoid the "/" in place of "out of" when writing a ratio in plain text. Other minor changes that reduce the use of unnecessary commas also make sense. If you disagree with the way the statement is presented in the guideline, it might be a good idea to bring it up at some point. I wouldn't oppose further tweaking if you see a reason to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Adamstom.97. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Infinity Wars edits

I believe that much of the info in the intro to the article is excessive, to the point where it's not summarizing the article as a whole as much as it is simply parroting information from later in the article. For instance, and probably my chief concern is. that the lead specially notes that the title was changed from Infinity Wars part 1, to simply Infinity Wars and it gives the date to when that change occurred. This is not summary material, this is a very specific detail that people would normally look for in the production section. Putting it up in the lead makes the article as a whole look sloppy. --Deathawk (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you take issue with specific wording then feel free to give it a c/e, but the lead is supposed to summarise the key points. You shouldn't just delete half of the summary because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete half the summary, I deleted two sentances at most, and much of the information there I waould still consider excessive even with rewording. In my opinion what's happening is that the article is trying to summarize a narrative, where a clear one does not exist. Look at the lead for Ant Man or the original Avengers. These read like natural evolution summarizing the major points, the lead for Infinity Wars however reads like someone mistakingly put production section info in the lead. --Deathawk (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Look again, you deleted as close to half of the paragraph as possible. And look at those other articles you mentioned, they have the same writer and director info. The only thing different about this one is the mention of the title change, and that has been a pretty big and notable thing with the film, which is why it was deemed noteworthy enough for the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adamstom.97. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Posting this on your talk page...

...since you appear unwilling to remain to remain focused on article content, and it'll be a cold day in Muspel before I get into another back and forth about user behaviour on an article talk page.

You do realize that if you make an off-topic, uncivil remark and are asked to strike, and refuse as you did here, that can be taken as an indication that you are refusing to abide by our core conduct policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite having been warned, right? You can be blocked for that. It's actually worse than edit-warring or violating our content policies, as far as how the community and the admin corps are willing to treat it: veteran accounts are almost never blocked for edit-warring unless their owners are not only tendentious editors but are careless about it, and usually the most you will get for content violations is a TBAN.

You really should be more considerate of others when using the talk pages: I have just as much of a right to be there as you do, and your constantly making me feel unwelcome (going back several years now) has never been appreciated. But this new aggressive streak you appear to be on is totally unacceptable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I thought I'd comment here, given that Adam's talk page is on my watchlist, and I agree with much of what he said on the Agent Carter talk page. Just as you've got every right to be here, so does he. He has the right to contribute to as many articles as he wants, with as much content as he wants, and especially with the amount that he's contributed to such articles, he has the right to defend the content and articles. Especially when you return to a year-old discussion to claim some sort of victory, while we know that Wikipedia is not about WINNING, and dictate that you can add tags without revert to reliably sourced content and after the discussion has long concluded, without at least an attempt at discussion first, whether on an article or user talk page.

Yes, I've got a right to post this very message as well, so don't believe you can say that I do not. We're sick of editors like you, coming in like you have on this very talk page, throwing around threats of administrators and blocks and bans, and demanding that we respect you, when what we give you is simply a reflection of exactly what you've given us. Treat others how you expect to be treated. Don't expect civility when you won't act civil to us, when you don't do the same for us, with all of your holier-than-thou acting.

You complain about personal attacks and feeling unwelcome, and yet I recall you talking about how [i]t's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. If you want editors to respect you, then practice what you preach. You've been warned as well. After that comment and others thoughts you've enlightened us with, it is clear that the only reason you return to contribute to these articles and talk pages, when you've stated you have little interest in them, is to start further drama and drive editors out. This is totally unacceptable. -- Alex^TW 12:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually didn't notice this until today, but when/where did I [state] [I] have little interest in [superhero movies and TV shows]? I have never said anything of the sort, as if I had it would have been untrue. While I will admit I often find editing Wikipedia articles on the subject to be an unpleasant waste of my time, that is not the same as having little interest in the topics: on the contrary, I really wish I could contribute to those pages without being subjected to auto-reverting, inscrutable edit summaries, and downright uncivil and off-topic talk page remarks (like the one I linked above) precisely because I love these movies (and appreciate the TV shows to various between "liking" them and "tolerating them just enough that if I could watch them legally I would"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Could all of you folks stop putting words in my mouth? Alex, you should strike the bit about me "claiming some sort of victory" (I did no such thing), and I honestly have no idea what you are talking about with most of the rest of your comment. Adding maintenance templates to questionable material is not vandalism, and your defense of Adam's claim that it is (which is what I assume you mean by "add tags without revert") is out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And there you are again, with your "strike this, strike that", dictating editors yet again on what they can and cannot post. Amusing how you ask that we remove attacks - do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? I find it a blatant personal attack. You won't? No, I refuse to strike any part of my post, I stand by every word of it and would repeat it all again. If you believe that I am putting words into your mouth, or that any of us are, that is clearly because we are reading your posts and interpreting them as blatant incivility towards us. Stop trying to claim innocence and naivety, and say you have no idea what we're talking about. You do. You just don't want to admit that you are the bigger part of the problem here. Get yourself in line. -- Alex^TW 12:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

In response to the above do you see us asking you to remove your attacks? How about you strike your entire initial post? ... You won't? No, I refuse to strike any part of my post, I would like to point to this exchange that I had completely forgotten about until last night (which as far as I can recall was my last interaction with Alex until the above exchange three weeks ago): I recommend you revoke and strike out your personal attack of stalking, as you recommend other do, as you have no basis for this claim[5] Okay, fine.[6] (Note that I actually did have evidence of Alex hounding me at the time, but didn't feel comfortable disclosing it and didn't feel I had to since I had not shown up on ANI requesting sanctions against him; I have more obvious and less confidential evidence now.) Pot, kettle, black. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Adam, you may also be interested in the above editor's side-discussions at User talk:Jack Sebastian#Re: and User talk:Curly Turkey#What am I gonna do... -- Alex^TW 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Jessica Jones (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

Jessica Jones (season 2) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deadline

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chapter 1 (Legion)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chapter 1 (Legion) 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 Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Spiderverse

My problem with your section is that it contained a lot of what I would say, excessive details which genunily make production sections hard to read. For instance within the sentance where it was announced there are five names attached as producers. This is excessive and is not in service of the readers. The section could be best summed up "The project was officially announced on X date" which gives the same general level of information but is a much easier read. I'm trying to avoid sections that read like press releases here. --Deathawk (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleting details is not in service of the reader. If you think it is hard to read, then you could try giving it a c/e, but you don't just get to take out stuff you don't like. And there is plenty of issues with your edit, so blanket reverting my restore is not going to help your case here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that the details there were excessive. As I mentioned in the first edit the info already exists elsewhere in the article where it's better served. Yes it is important to list producers but listing them in the prose just make it unnecessarily hard to read. The problem with producers, in particular,is that they can be anything from just a simple purse holder all the way to a phantom director, if the film has five producers the roles are more likely the former. The goal of Wikipedia is not to include every detail that can be found about something, but rather to serve the article or section of the article, thus putting this info in the production section does more harm than good. --Deathawk (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop

You are edit-warring again in The Gifted article. To date, you have reverted three different times. If you revert again. I will file a complaint at AN3R. Why is it so hard for you to simply seek a consensus on the talk page? Why do you have to fight every damn time you misinterpret Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines? I (and others) will absolutely see your edits as tendentious editing. I strongly urge you to stop reverting and seek the counsel of edmins or other experienced editors to assist you in increasing your understanding of things like tense usage and basic interpretation of sources.
Please consider this your last warning prior to filing a complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding tense

Because I knew that you would not (for whatever reason), I've initiated discussion about our differences of interpretation over guidelines here. See you there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Second Season of Iron Fist

Hi. This will be awkward. First of all, sorry if I'm bothering or anything. I'm a long time reader of the MCU pages here and this link (http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/iron-fist/news/a845355/iron-fist-marvel-netflix-season-2-first-look-danny-rand-finn-jones/) has surfaced with set photos showing that the season has officially began production.

I went to Favre1fan, since I know he's one of the most frequent editors, but he seems to be busy outside the wiki. Then I posted it on the talk page for the list of MCU TV series, and finally an anonymous editor changed the status of the season to "filming"... without adding the link to the references or creating a page for the season. Close enough. So now I came to you, because I've seen you edit a lot of those pages and even create one for the second season of Luke Cage, to ask if you could create a page for the season etc. If it's too much problem I'll understand, once again I'm just here because this is relatively big news that has been ignored for too long for some reason. Thanks for your attention. Uglyguy26 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, Favre1fan has taken care of it. Uglyguy26 (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Gifted (TV series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hello Adamstom.97: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas to all!

	We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)