User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 11

Happy New Year


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

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year 2024!

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

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

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

DYK for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings
—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC) GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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


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


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

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

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

Thanks for reverting it back, though :)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * I haven't done an FAC before but taking a quick look at your article, it seems like there may be too many images for the size and some of them are a bit tangential. You would probably benefit from cutting down the number in the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed three images. I've only recently done a few reviews, but I think for FAC image reviews it mostly just involves making sure the images make sense to include in the article, make sure there is alt text, check if they are properly licensed, and check the source link (if there is one) to make sure it actually features the image/check if the link still works.
 * I can ask another editor to do it though if you want. I'm actually surprised it wasn't done already. For most reviews, it's the first thing done because it's the quickest and easiest part. -- Zoo  Blazer   17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response, busy couple of days. Looks like someone has sorted you out? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's all good now. -- Zoo  Blazer   16:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Casual readers just looking at the main page aren't going to be as concerned about main vs. recurring as we are. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And you know this how? You don't know that.. –ACase0000 (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know this because of how often casual readers try to change who is main vs. recurring based on their personal feelings about how much a character appears in the show. Regardless, the key information at this article is that all the listed characters were main cast members at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

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


 * You could probably do ones based on these lines:
 * Kevin Feige, Arad's second-in-command, realized that unlike Spider-Man and the X-Men, whose film rights were licensed to Sony and Fox, respectively, Marvel still owned the rights to many of the core members of the Avengers. Feige, a self-described "fanboy", envisioned creating a shared universe
 * Edgar Wright's pitch for Ant-Man in 2006 helped shape the early films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Feige said some of the MCU was changed to "accommodate this version" of the film, as that version "helped to dictate what we did with the roster for Avengers the first time. It was a bit of both in terms of his idea for the Ant-Man story influencing the birth of the MCU in the early films leading up to Avengers.
 * You'll just want to simplify them down to get to the core ideas for both. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Something like these to start?
 * ... that self-described "fanboy" Kevin Feige envisioned a shared universe once he realized that Marvel still owned the rights to many core members of the Avengers?
 * ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
 * Not sure where to fit Phase One in for the first one. The second one is closer, but probably a bit of an Easter egg link. --  Zoo Blazer  17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think those are both pretty good, how about this?
 * ... that self-described "fanboy" Kevin Feige envisioned Phase One of a shared universe once he realized that Marvel still owned the rights to many core members of the Avengers?
 * ... that Edgar Wright's pitch for an Ant-Man film in 2006 helped to shape the early films of Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
 * - adamstom97 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those look great. Thanks for the help! --  Zoo Blazer  17:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ended up not using the Feige one as it is basically the same as the one used for Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) --  Zoo Blazer  18:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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


 * I would have just redirected them if there hadn't been previous deletion discussions. I'm not sure what you mean by "backdoor deletion", every article that is moved to draftspace needs the redirect to be updated so it points to the correct mainspace location, otherwise we could be sending readers to the draftspace. I was unaware of this 90 day rule, I have been involved in many discussions that have led to similar articles being sent to the draftspace well after 90 days. Deleted drafts can be restored so I don't see what the issue is that so desperately needs to be cleaned up. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An AfD discussion can lead to an older article being sent to draft, but it can't be done boldly. If you knew it was ineligible for a bold redirect, I am not sure why you thought it would be eligible for a bold draft and then redirect! As for backdoor deletion, I thought I had explained. The pages contain edit history - all the edits every contributer made. When you bold redirect, no edit history is lost. Someone can revert the redirect and the history will all be available. By sending to draft, you created a new redirect, which you then retargeted. It has no edit history. Look: . The edit history is now all in draft space, but the draft will be deleted if no one edits and publishes the draft. It is a backdoor deletion method that jettisons edit history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That would only be "backdoor deletion" if the draft was deleted and the edit history permanently lost. But (a) the draft won't be deleted if interested editors work on it and then move it back to the mainspace when it is ready, and (b) the edit history of deleted drafts is not lost permanently and can be restored if requested. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * that would - unchecked - ... Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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


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

DYK for Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. I saw you change the capital letters to lowercase but that wasn't needed for the first one, so I restored that one. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My first edit was needed to fix the punctuation and to fix the linkage so it wouldn't appear on the report Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. The fact that I went a little further than necessary in lowercasing didn't create any problem, so why did you jump in to fix it? My second edit was because I didn't look carefully at what you did; I should have just left it, for which I'm sorry.  But then you again jumped in to fix what wasn't in any way broken. Dicklyon (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I agree that the case there doesn't matter. So I'm wondering why you're changing it while criticizing me for changing it.  Just seems like an odd thing to do. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you think it is a problem to fix the formatting. I know my changes had no impact on how the link works, that's not why I did it. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a problem, just wondering why you did it. Your reverts suggested that you thought I had left it in a non-ideal state.  What do you mean now by "fix the formatting"? Dicklyon (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need for the first letter of the link to be lowercase when it is piped, so I fixed it. Nothing more complicated than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is equally no need for it to be uppercase, so no fix was needed. No big deal.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Star-Spangled Man
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Picard Season 3
Incorrect formatting changes in what way? All I did was remove a word. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That's not all your edit changed: diff - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I only meant to remove that word (which is moot, meow).  I didn't realize there'd be a cascade effect.  I'll try to be more careful in the future. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


 * No, I am obviously aware that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean anything, I was only building my point on what should not be viewed as the subjective interpretation stated in WP:ANTAGONIST, which is being backed by multiple RS. I was not aware of someone else making the same edit before, and I do not think I have to leave a comment on an article's talk page for every one of my (copy)edits. But thanks for letting me know that multiple editors find it inappropriate, I will concede if that is the case. Undisclosed role and undisclosed villain are not really that big of a difference. Let's leave it the current way then. Cheers! — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  15:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of "undisclosed role" either, I think that has become way overused of late. I personally don't have a big issue with saying someone is going to be the villain, in my experience I think we tend to be okay with that wording when discussing the casting. But in the cast section I do think it is good to avoid it in general. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it! Yea I was also wondering why don't we describe Esposito's character a slightly bit more when the source has clearly provided more info than merely an "undisclosed role". Anyway, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for your timely and helpful explanation!! — Prince of Erebor （ The Book of Mazarbul ）  16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * You can't just add whatever you want to Wikipedia, everything needs to be supported by a reliable source. See WP:V. Things do get a bit tricky with the lead, which is the opening few paragraphs at the start of the article. Because the lead is just a summary of the rest of the article it generally does not need any in-line citations for verification, but that means it can only include details that are supported by in-line citations in the body of the article. What you added was not supported by what is in the reception section of the article, so that is why I reverted your edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But I gave my reasoning. Not only that, but I also read the reception heading on Wakanda Forever. Isn't that good enough? Jayaltwriter2004! (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot just give your reasoning in the edit summary. You must ensure that everything you add to the lead is also stated in the body of the article and supported by an in-line citation that points to a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ......What? Jayaltwriter2004! (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you need to do some research on how Wikipedia works. There are links on your talk page that should help you learn about our policies and guidelines. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * In the future, when you are making a change please explain the reason in your edit summary so other editors know why you are doing it.
 * Just because they have removed this information from the source does not mean it is not true. They would need to state that is the case or contradict it. For now, we should stick with the current dates until there is updated information for us to use. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On IMDB's website, the release is listed as one episode per week. Considering that, along with the edits on Amazon's official website, I think you should edit accordingly. P Phongsakon (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable source that we can use. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Happy to step back
I genuinely meant what I said. If you feel these issues are closed, I'm not going to pursue the issues further. My suggestion was made in good faith as I've said more than once. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning the intention behind your messages, I personally am just trying to maintain the standards of the article as we come to a compromise over this wording. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well put it like this, I am finding the discussion quite tiring. If you have some further views, I'd be happy to read them. If you have any questions for me, do pose them. Otherwise I think I'll leave it for now and see if anyone else has some views. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)