User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 9

My opinion
Please update even date of the releasing movie 2402:3A80:1EE1:F473:0:0:21D6:FBA3 (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you are referring to. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery (season 4)
I see your point that critics is the rotten tomatoes default, but imo this (Discovery season 4) is an unusual case, because it has very few critic reviews, and the audience score for the show is truly abysmal. Anyone who actually looks up the underlying rotten tomatoes will see that, but it seems worthy of note to me on the wikipedia (which otherwise gives the misleading impression that it has been an unqualified success). But I will defer to your extensive experience with movie and series review pages. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4A7F:D451:393D:9DD:5ED:7BB7 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is not reliable and very rarely noteworthy. It should only be included in a Wikipedia article if there is commentary on it such as how it is discussed at Captain Marvel (film). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the example is very helpful, and the warnings there are well-advised. I'd guess this show has much more of a bimodal tail distribution (i.e. polarized reaction), but that would take a long argument to establish (--and also require a lot of other evidence). 2601:184:4A7F:D451:393D:9DD:5ED:7BB7 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned you indirectly at MCU talk page
FYI. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with Marcus Lemonis article
Hi Adam. It is nice to meet you. I noticed you are an active Wikipedian and a participant in WP:TELEVISION. As Marcus Lemonis is a television personality and host of a T.V. show, I am hoping you can help. I recently posted a request at Talk:Marcus Lemonis to address concerns about a reoccurring issue of WP:UNDUE and to add some new content to the article. I would be grateful for your assistance and intervention. StephanieAtMarcusLemonis (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am indeed a reasonably active Wikipedian who works on television articles, but I usually prefer to stick to articles about series that I watch and enjoy. And despite the clear communication about your conflict of interest in this matter, I still would personally like to avoid getting involved in such a situation. I suggest you leave a message at WT:TV to see if any other television editors are interested in helping at the article. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Star Trek Discovery
The Scandinavian countries are not specific countries, it's a pretty big part of Europe covering several countries. Also, the launch of Paramount+ there is special, since it doesn't have the rights to show Star Trek, this was s workaround since Netflix has the rights in this area. Their for it doesn't have season 1-3 or any other star trek either. The coverage of Paramount+ earlier is not sufficient.

I hope you understand I will redo my edit. RobertoDenmark (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TVGUIDE and MOS:TVINTL. Unless there is clear third party coverage of why this is noteworthy, it should not be added. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Star Trek: Section 31 (TV series)
Hello, Adamstom.97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Star Trek: Section 31 (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Eternals
The primary location was Camden Town, along the canal, by the market, and the main roads. Except for the brief establishing shot on Cromwell Road it is difficult to recognise any other London location which makes the reference to the Camden location important for non-UK readers. - - AlisonW (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that Camden is the only place in London that filming took place is incorrect and not supported by the sources in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Er, never said it was the only, just the main. The ending on Parliament Hill (with my flat in the background) is alsobin Camden. WP seeks to increase information not reduce it, as such locations should be as exact as possible. - - AlisonW (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if you say in the lead of the article that filming took place in "Camden Town, London" then that suggests to the reader that they did not film anywhere else in London, which is not true. It would also be WP:UNDUE to list all of the specific locations within London in the lead. Camden is mentioned in the filming section where it is appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop deciding what goes in or not
You are one person fighting with multiple people on articles. I suggest you stop telling others what is notable. Not every movie becomes No. 1. That fact that it was in top 5 is notable. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, multiple editors have explained to you why the data you keep adding is not inherently notable and yet you continue to ignore the talk page discussion and add it anyway. This has nothing to do with me "deciding what goes in", this is based on Wikipedia's standards for noteability. "That fact that it was in top 5 is notable" is not necessarily true, it depends what list it is on. The fact that it is in top 5 or top 10 lists for HBO Max streaming (or streaming in general) is noteworthy, the fact that it was in the top 5 for DVD sales on some random months is not. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nightwatch (upcoming film)


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Silk (upcoming film)


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Silver Sable (film)


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

hello
can you edit Draft:Bruce Wayne (Arkham series character) please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Blackknight1234567890 (talk • contribs) 1:15, February 26, 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? Is there an issue that you would like my help with? I don't usually work on video game or character articles, and I prefer to stick to articles that I am personally interested in rather than ones that have been requested by others. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Spider-Women (film)


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Created a discussion in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. talk page
Adamstom.97, please check the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. talk page. I have created a discussion. - KingKlaus07 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films
hello dear, why you revert my edit on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films,... I add many actors who act in many films in the 3 phase, please advice --أحمد محمد بسيوني (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Only actors who have appeared in the billing block for at least three films are listed. Please see this page for a detailed explanation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It was also an unexplained reordering of the table to not be alpha-order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Question
In a recent edit summary you wrote: "In writing credits, "and" and "&" mean two different things and should not be arbitrarily changed." What is the difference and where is this explained in Wikipedia guidelines? Debresser (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * In the WGA screenwriting credit system "&" is used to indicate a writing team, so if an episode's screenplay is credit to "Jim & Bob and Steve" it means that Jim and Bob worked together as a team to write the screenplay, and Steve also contributed to it but separately from Jim and Bob. It is standard procedure for film and TV articles to follow the official credits, especially when we are talking about the infobox or episode tables which are often being attributed to the film/episode itself by default rather than an inline citation. Following the official credits also helps avoid any arguments over the correct ordering/formatting of the names. If you are concerned you could start a discussion at Manual of Style/Film and/or Manual of Style/Television about adding a note to those MOSs about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware of that distinction. Following the official credits makes sense and indeed is standard. It indeed would be a good idea to explain this in some guideline. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording on Star Trek: Picard
Howdy. I see that you made this revert. I don't think that's correct. There is no such verb "executive produces". It is not even grammatical. It should be "executively produces", as it needs to be an adverb characterizing a verb, and not an adjective. But nobody talks that way.

Here's what a Google search for 'executive produce' returns.

You can respond here, I will watch this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think "executively produces" changes the meaning, he is an "executive producer" not a producer who acts "executively". A Google search for "executive produces" shows that industry sources do use this wording. I can see why you find it strange but it has definitely not been an issue at any film or TV article I've worked on over the last 10 years or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found some instances of "executive produce" as a verb too, afterwards. Looks like slang and ungrammatical, and the Meriam Webster dictionary does not have this combination, so I would prefer "executive producer" which would be grammatically correct and in widespread use. Wikipedia should also aim for good and proper style. But given that this "executive produce" is not an obvious typo, I won't press the matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Deadpool television series title
The name field is a deprecated field in Template:Infobox television in that the name field used is handled by the name of the article. So currently it is sitting in a maintenance category, Category:Pages using infobox television with non-matching title, in which it states "The value includes an alternative title. Move the alternative title to |alt_name=." which is want I was doing and it kept Deadpool: The Animated Series in the infobox below the title while having the title match the name of the article.

If the name of the series was going to be Deadpool: The Animated Series and not an alternative title as your first reversion summary stated, then if sources show this, then you should start a WP:RM to try and get it moved since it might prove controversial. Or if Deadpool is the common name from the sources as your second reversion summary stated, then the article should not be moved and the alt_name field should be used for Deadpool: The Animated Series as my edit suggested. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not a deprecated field, it is just not necessary now because of the auto-population. Though there is some support at Template talk:Infobox television for not changing existing articles that use this parameter, lets assume that it is fine to follow the instructions at the category page. That page does not state that this is an alternative title, it says that it could be an alternative title or it could also be incorrect, a native language name, or something that shouldn't be changed ("If the title is still different, leave it for now."). I believe the latter is the case for this article. The infobox should have the actual name for the series, which is "Deadpool: The Animated Series", and the article should be at the WP:COMMONTITLE which is "Deadpool". If you feel so strongly about changing this then the correct next step would be to suggest a page move that ignores WP:COMMONTITLE and moves the article to "Deadpool: The Animated Series". - adamstom97 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You are expressing two contradicting views here. Either the infobox should have the actual name of the show, Deadpool: The Animated Series, and you should start a WP:RM to get it moved or the article should be kept at the the common title, Deadpool, and the infobox should match this title with Deadpool: The Animated Series in the alt_field since it is an alternative name compared to the common title. Either way the infobox should match the article title. Aspects (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is my experience that the infobox should have the actual name of the series and putting "Deadpool" with "Deadpool: The Animated Series" as an alternative title would suggest that both are official names for the show. But regardless, it sounds like the best option will be to move the page to "Deadpool: The Animated Series". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your edit-warring
You keep reverting any changes I make it to The Suicide Squad article and seem to act as if you have ownership. Next revert will be a complain to the admins, discuss your issues first. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting a bad edit with clear reasoning is not edit warring, and it isn't my fault that you keep making edits that I have issues with. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting anything is edit-warring and nothing is going tp justify it (except vandalism or any other exemptions per WP:3RR). AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no justification for reverting? Where is the policy that states that? I understand being frustrated but nonsense like that isn't going to help resolve the situation. It is unfortunate that you keep making edits that I disagree with but that is not an excuse to throw common sense out the window. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:3RR and be civil in your tone. I am complaining you since you seem to be wilfully ignoring policies. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:40, 16 April 2022 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Star Trek Discovery title card.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek Discovery title card.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) 17:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Star Trek Strange New Worlds logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek Strange New Worlds 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) 17:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Question
Why is ComicBook.com not a reliable source? Is it like a situational thing when its reliable? I'm really just asking because I've used that source a lot and don't want to be putting a non reliable source in articles. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at this article (which is what I am assuming you are talking about) you will see that ComicBook.com is not the source of the information, they are referencing an earlier report by Bespin Bulletin which is not reliable. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ah thanks for explaining to me ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly
Hello, we've definitely had some mixed editing today with EW citations being either web or magazine citations since the citation bot converts all of them to magazines. I don't know if you saw what said when he reverted some of the phase 4 articles back to magazines earlier or not, but in case you didn't, here's a quote from the edit summmary: "we can use cite mag as these are websites for the magazines, and it's still formatted and displayed the same. Citation bot is generally acceptable in updating the ref formats of MCU articles".

If you still feel like we shouldn't use the magazine citations, that's fine. Figured I'd show you this because I'm trying to get a consensus of what to do since it's gone back and forth today. -- Zoo (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise how many articles had been changed when I first started reverting those changes. I started a discussion at User talk:Citation bot about this as I do think the changes are incorrect. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll keep an eye on how that goes. If something is changed I'll rerun the bot to convert the citations back. -- Zoo (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You're most welcome. BilCat (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

A brief hello
Wanted to leave a little message to say it's nice to speak with you again! You reviewed and passed The View (talk show) when I nominated it as a GA years ago, which I appreciated very much. KyleJoan talk 02:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That was quite a long time ago now! Thanks for the message - adamstom97 (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

SSU opinion
Hey, Adam. Wanted to ask a quick question related to your appreciated contributions to Spider-Man film articles + SSU. What's your general opinion on the SSU's movies? I found Venom to be pretty medicore after watching it last October, Venom: Let There Be Carnage was pretty funny and atleast had some good scenes, and am planning to check if Morbius is truly peak cinema.

Were you also c/e-ing the TFATWS articles in anticipation for a possible GA nomination? And in the future, would LTBC and NWH become GAs? Thanks. – SirDot (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, I enjoyed Venom for what it was, and enjoyed working on that article and all the SSU pages, but I was disappointed by LTBC (I was hoping there would be more actual carnage, and I felt it was too short to really explore stuff in an interesting way). Morbius certainly is something, and the announcement of a Bad Bunny movie based on a barely-established character does not give me hope for the future, so we'll just have to see how that all goes. I would like to get LTBC and Morbius to GA since I was able to with Venom, but those aren't really a priority for me at the moment.
 * I have been meaning to do some work on the FaWS articles to get them to GA level, same as I did for WandaVision last year, and the c/e I did the other day was the first step of me finally getting around to that. I am now working to expand all of the articles with production information, which I am collating and organising off-wiki because I have found that to be an easier approach. Hopefully it won't be too long before you see me adding that info in to the articles. My personal plan is to finish this work on FaWS and then carry on through the Phase Four articles in release order, so yes I do think we will be able to get NWH to GA, but I can't make any promises about the time frame because this sort of work takes a lot of time and I am often busy with real life stuff. I also spend quite a bit of my Wikipedia time working on non-Marvel articles, especially lately. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

FATWS GA information
Hey @Adamstom.97. I noticed that you were interested in promoting FATWS to a good article. I found some links which provides some more info about production which you could add into the article. I hope this helps.

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/05/the-falcon-and-the-winter-soldier-marvel-disney-1234635597/

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2021/06/04/production-designer-ray-chan-explores-familiar-characters-on-all-new-territory/

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2566917/the-falcon-and-the-winter-soldier-behind-the-scenes-facts-about-the-marvel-tv-show

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/falcon-winter-soldier-zemo-endgame-1234964228/ Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Pilot (The Gifted)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pilot (The Gifted) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ev iolite  (talk)  23:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Rings of Power
My bad, I only glanced over the article. (I seem to have been mislead by some news outlet headlines about the exact nature of the continuity as well.)★Trekker (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All good. It was only recently clarified to be separate and I don't think that fact has gotten much media coverage. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It was a particularly exciting weekend with all the Star Wars stuff and I enjoyed working through everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Question
Can I ask what kind of device you edit on? In this revert, and the identical one after, you complained that the edit created "heaps of unnecessary whitespace". On a smartphone, which a large number of WP editors and readers use, the section now looks terrible. I can only imagine you use a differnt device, such as a desktop, where this isn't readily obvious to you.

The first "column" (starring) is shoved to the left. The next col, (recurring) is shoved to the right, but doesn't begin until after the first col ends. (As if a

template was used). The third col is also shoved to the left, but again doesn't start until after the second col ends. This creates a huge gap (or whitespace) on the left, between the first and third cols, and gaps above and below the second col on the right, equal to the first and third cols. It's a bizarre look, and must certinaly be unintended. Add to that the lettering is reduced in size by almost half, making reading all the more difficult.

With the col formatting removed, the three lists become a single, linear list that completely fills the page, (iow, no whitespace at all), and the lettering is full size, like the rest of the prose. If you have a smartphone, perhaps you could take another look on it, and then reconsider your reverts. I didn't remove the cols just for shits and giggles, it was an obvious improvement. - w o lf  22:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I was about to mention the same thing. Currently on my phone this is how the section looks. -- Zoo (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On Chrome (Mac desktop and iOS) for me, the columns for the cast on The Mandalorian are appearing as the hope for it to be: three columns right next to one another on the regular site, while still stacked on top of one another as if the columns "weren't there" on mobile. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I edit using a laptop and a smartphone and don't have any issues with the format, which is supposed to be responsive to the size of your screen. On a larger screen such as laptop or desktop they appear as three columns side-by-side, but if a smaller screen does not have room for them then the columns go underneath instead of beside. This works for me if I decrease the size of my screen, it goes down to two columns fitting (like in Zoo's screenshot) and then down to one column fitting (like most smartphones should have). If this isn't working for you then it may be an issue that you can raise at the template's talk page? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a Windows laptop on Chrome, there is a huge white space after the Starring column, probably because there's only two bullets, but the columns are side-by-side. On Android Chrome, they are a scrollable list, with no whitespace between Starring and Recurring. — SirDot (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What is your device set up? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on an Android smartphone. The article layout looked the same as in the image provided by Zoo above, but staggered. After I removed the cols, the section looked like this. That is why it appearred to me as an obvious improvement. - w o lf  01:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I can't tell with your image (it says it's blocked as "adult content"), but understanding what you're saying, I can only gather that it's somehow how the device is working with the template to render the material. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only "problem" from my image now that I think about it is because Mando and Grogu are the only main stars, it's a very short section compared to the rest, so it creates multiple rows of empty space which makes it look off at first glance. -- Zoo (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah we can't do too much about that, and it isn't a problem for smaller screens, it's just on bigger screens that there will be extra space there. But I think that is better then having one long column with way more whitespace to the right for all screens bigger than a phone. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It's obviously not adult content, apparently you need to be logged in to view Flickr accounts(?). So here is the image on Imgur. Anyway, even if there is some whitespace to the right when cols aren't used, I think that is preferrable to the way it appears now. Don't the majority of users access WP via smartphones now? So, between a layout that looks terrible to the majority vs some whitespace along the right for a minority of viewers (which is not as bad, numerous articles have whitespace on the right for various reasons), is there really a debate? - w o lf  03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is working how it should, it is creating three columns and showing them side-by-side if they fit, and if they don't fit then it pushes them down to the next line until they do. On my smartphone, in, it appears as just one column which is what you are wanting. If you don't like the fact that on your smartphone in there is enough room for two columns then you might be able to start a discussion about that at Template talk:Columns-start. But that is a problem with how the template is being displayed on your device, not with how we are using the template in the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait... you think this problem is specific to just my phone? I don't believe that is the case at all. This is an issue for all smartphone users, and as another user pointed out above, it's more likely how this content is set up here, as opposed to a possible issue with the template that needs to be ferreted out on the template talk page. Also, despite it being mentioned twice, you still haven't addressed the issue of majority vs minority users, and doing what's best for the most readers. This template has been around for a long time, but it's not used on very many articles. Is there a MOS or WP:TV guideline that states this template must used? Or is this just a personal preference of a particular user or users? I think this all needs to be addressed here, while this thread is active, with the parties involved. - w o lf  10:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Adam is suggesting that perhaps on Android OS, the way Columns-start renders interprets the screen is affecting how you are viewing it. I went and looked on my iPad on the mobile site, and in both portrait and landscape viewing, I have two columns next to each other, and then the third below that. This template is being used per the documentation Template:Columns-start that shows which columns template is mobile-friendly, of which this one states it is. Col-float could also be used, but I also don't believe the columns should be removed because this is still rendering as intended and expected on the desktop site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Favre, yes I did not mean "just your phone" I meant the type of phone you have. Regardless, my talk page is definitely not the place for this discussion to continue, either you need to get consensus at The Mandalorian articles to remove the columns (which I and others would definitely disagree with) or you need to go to the template talk page and explain that on the type of phone you have, desktop mode is showing two columns and you think it should be one. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"Regardless, my talk page is definitely not the place for this discussion to continue, either you need to get consensus at The Mandalorian articles to remove the columns (which I and others would definitely disagree with) or you need to go to the template talk page and explain that on the type of phone you have, desktop mode is showing two columns and you think it should be one. - adamstom97 21:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)" - that is awesome collaboration. Thanks, and have a great day. - w o lf  22:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if it came across like I am not trying to work with you, that is not my intention. But your concern is with the formatting of the template so there either needs to be a discussion at the template's talk page or consensus to stop using the template. And if you want to try the latter then you need to open that discussion to everyone who is interested in The Mandalorian articles, not just the people who watch my talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Hello there!

I just wanted to say thanks for your work on the Young Jedi Adventures draft, you've really made it amazing. I was at Celebration myself for the last couple of days, so I didn't have time to work on it, but even if I had - your writing is vastly superior to mine. I dunno how to give out a barnstar. But I'd give one to you.

MYFBWYA, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! And welcome to Wikipedia! I have lots of experience with TV articles and am pretty used to getting them set up like that. Hope you enjoyed Celebration - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Star Trek: Discovery (season 3)
The article Star Trek: Discovery (season 3) 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:Star Trek: Discovery (season 3) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ArcticSeeress -- ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Vacation
Hope you enjoyed your vacation/break! — SirDot (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it was a good break but also showed the difficulties of traveling during the pandemic! Nice to be back to a bit of normality. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I am apologize for a possible edit war and 3RR
User Adamstom, I want to apologize to you for my mistake on a possible edit war and I edit too fast and a possible 3RR. I don't want to go too far on a 3RR. I let go immediately. I will stop this instant. I will apologize to you. If you can accept my apology, we will move on. I hope you will accept my apology for its edit mistakes. I will be careful not to edit war next time OK? Thanks. Talk to you later. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I won't have to go to the article's talk page and I am here to talk to you for an apology. I hope you read my previous message. I let go for now. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You went way past 3RR, re-adding your changes many times and reverting multiple other editors. If you make a change that other editors disagree with then you need to stop immediately and take your concerns to the talk page, not keep reverting. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop being mean to me, are you going to accept my apology or not? I already let go this instant. Once again, I already apologize to you and are you going to accept my apology or not? 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're countinuing your comments with a negative tone to me. I already know what a 3RR means in the past and I already stop the edit war this instant. If you can accept my apology we will move on. But if you refuse to apologize to me, I am not replyting to you ever again. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your reverting, again and again...
Please see MOS:TVPLOT, that such a section may be called "Plot" or "Premise" or "Overview", and there is nothing there preferring one over the other, in name or content. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that it has been called "Premise" literally since the article was created four years ago is why it should not have been arbitrarily changed to "Overview" with no discussion or consensus. As I explained in my edit summaries, the editor who just randomly changed it to "Overview" this weekend is the one who needs to gain consensus for their WP:BOLD change. Until then, WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO apply. The reason I said it should be "Premise" per MOS:TV is because the only reason "Overview" was added to MOS:TVPLOT was for cases where "Plot" or "Premise" are not appropriate, which is clearly not the case here. You need to be more careful when you are reverting / making accusations (Editor edit warring, again... What? Where did that come from?). Please self-revert. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The premise has now been added onto, and it therefore became an overview. That was not something done "randomly", as you claim. Apart from you nobody seems to have a problem with that. If you have a reason why there should be only a premise and not an overview, then please sate your reasons on the talkpage, otherwise, please just thank the editor who added content. I mean, if you want to revert to a previous version, you need at least some semblance of a reason. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave three very clear reasons. The heading was changed arbitrarily without discussion, the added content was unsourced (and in no way changed the section from a "Premise" to an "Overview", that is a bizarre retcon of the situation), and the added paragraph breaks were completely unnecessary for such a short section. I have given clear explanations here and in my edit summaries for all of this, and you have yourself pointed out that WP:BRD should have been followed, so I'm not sure why you are dragging this out. I made a well-explained, completely reasonable, routine revert and you tried to turn it into an edit war. I thought you had just made a mistake, but sounds like that is not the case? I would hope that an experienced editor such as yourself would not be intentionally targeting me based on some non-content-related issue (as this section header and some of your tone seems to suggest). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Overview", at least in the eyes of the TV project, is generally more accepted for non-fiction series, such as game shows or reality TV series where there is not "plot", but you're going to want to tell the readers what happens on such show; hence an overview. Additionally, the material that was also added to the premise was unsourced, which warranted reversion regardless. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Racist Troll
Before calling me a " racist troll", you should take the time to read the source you censor...Because you do not agree with a point of view does not mean the opposite way of thinking is automatically "racist"...

''Many critics are based on the necessity to respect Tolkien's intent such as this one :"Tolkien’s aim in writing Lord of the Rings was not to create some feel-good hero story about good triumphing over evil. He spent his life studying linguistics and the medieval folklore of the British Isles. He lamented the fact that true British history and folklore were lost in the Norman invasion of Britain. Tolkien admired the grand mythologies of the Nordic peoples and the Greeks. He mourned the loss of true British history, and through his love of myth and language, tried to create a mythology that was unique to the British Isles. Hence, the birth of the stories of Middle Earth. While we may all be more familiar with The Lord of the Rings, that story is just one small part of an expansive world and mythology that Tolkien spent his life creating.So, shoving the modern view of diversity into a pre-Anglo-Saxon mythological England makes little to no sense. On the one hand, it’s a slap in the face of Tolkien’s ultimate goal of creating this world and its stories. On the other hand, studios are still refusing to write interesting stories for non-white characters''." https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/amazons-the-rings-of-power-series-is-a-crime-against-the-fantasy-genre

--Flying Tiger (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I never called you a racist troll, and I did look at the source that you added. I was suggesting that the article is supporting the racist trolls, not you (necessarily, depends on why you want to add this source to the article). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring
I have noted an ongoing edit war among three primary people on The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. I am leaving the same final warning message for all three of you. All three of you have previously been blocked for edit warring in the past. Yet, the lesson does not seem to have been learned. Edit warring is not a means to an end. It's counterproductive and disruptive. This behavior is entirely unacceptable. It will stop. If you are not able to stop your edit warring, you will find yourself the recipient of a considerably longer block. It's your choice. You can either comply with our Edit warring policy and continue editing, or not comply and not be able to edit. Your choice. By all means continue the discussion at Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Rings_of_Power, and attempt to come to a consensus. If you can't come to a consensus, the appropriate response is NOT to edit war in a vain attempt to brute force your preferred version of the article into existence. See Dispute resolution and follow it. You will note that policy does NOT suggest edit warring. This ends. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Partially blocked
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continuing to edit war, as you did at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. This is partial block and applies only to The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. You were previously given a final warning regarding this behavior yet persist in continuing it. It doesn't matter if you think you're right and the other person is wrong. There is no deadline to get something right. Continue the discussion at the talk page. If that doesn't bring satisfaction, then continue with Dispute resolution as I advised you to do before. This was the absolute minimum block I felt I could give. You should be well advised to strongly reconsider your actions moving forward. Edit warring is NEVER a means to an end. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The IP edits I was reverting just now were completely unrelated to the previous warning and fall under multiple exceptions at WP:NOT3RR. Reverting clear vandalism and spam is not edit warring and being blocked for it is ridiculous. If you look at the talk page you will see that a) the IP editor clearly has no idea what they are doing and are just repeatedly adding biased junk to the article no matter what the discussion says, and b) there is a clear racist agenda behind the information that is being added which should not be allowed to remain in the article (whether I have the ability to edit it or not). I have requested page protection for the article but that hasn't stopped the IP editor from adding it yet again. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As the blocking administrator, it isn't my place of course to decline or accept this unblock. However Adamstom, I would like to be perfectly clear about a few things in the hopes that the message is brought home to you. It doesn't matter if the edits you were reverting now are completely unrelated to the ones you were edit warring over before. You don't get a new hall pass to conduct more edit warring because it's a different sort of revert on a different day. Continuing to revert is the problem, and you don't appear to be grasping that. Your claim that there is a clear racist agenda does not appear to be born out by the text being added by the anon IP . Maybe there is something in the sources that you find objectionable, and I would be glad to hear of it, but simply claiming it without providing clear evidence of it is not a reason to continue an edit war, no matter how offensive you think the material is. I have declined the protection request since the two people involved in adding/removing the material (you and the IP) have been blocked from the article for 48 hours. Per the first bullet point of Protection_policy, we don't protect pages when blocking individual editors will do. I will re-iterate; edit warring is NOT a means to an end. This behavior needs to stop. you've been blocked for edit warring twice in the past. If you persist in edit warring, it's only going to get worse. Please, have some patience, let others be involved, continue discussions, follow Dispute resolution. As I've mentioned before, there is no deadline. Maybe you're right, but doesn't mean you have to be declared right RIGHT NOW. Patience, and stop the edit warring. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

For whoever reviews my unblock request, the "racist agenda" that I referred to above can be seen at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power and Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. I'm not saying that the IP added clearly racist wording to the article, but what they added is what the racists want to be added. There are also previous discussions for this stuff in the talk archive, and another editor had actually suggested we get the page protected preemptively to avoid this sort of thing but that isn't really how it works.

I have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that edit warring is wrong, but also that it happens sometimes. It's often just a couple passionate editors who get away from themselves and need to take a deep breath, which is exactly what happened with the dispute that Hammersoft had warned me about before (by the time they warned myself and the other participants, the edit warring had stopped and we were discussing the issue at the talk page). That is not what happened this time. An IP editor who could not be reasoned with at the talk page was repeatedly adding vandalism to the article. Unfortunately this is very common for film and TV articles, which is where I mainly edit on Wikipedia, and any editor who regular works on these sorts of articles will tell you that we have to deal with this many times every day. I reverted the IP's changes twice, gave clear and calm explanations at the talk page, and requested page protection. I don't think it is fair to call that edit warring, or to block me for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From my chair, it is very far from clear that this is vandalism. As you noted yourself, the Forbes article which is one of the citations supporting the passage might be reliable...and you haven't checked. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Even if you are certain it was vandalism, there are other people who can handle it. There are 116 people who have watchlisted that article, plus another 200 thousand views of the article in the last week. Somebody else will surely get around to reverting it with THAT many eyes on it. It doesn't have to be you that is the defender of the article. It doesn't have to be you that conducts the reversion. In the future, err on the side of caution and be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And now you are edit warring again, only this time on Loki (season 2) with two reversions already today . You are edging very close to a sitewide (as opposed to partial) block. Edit warring in other places on the project is not a good way to convince a reviewing administrator that the edit warring partial block was unwarranted. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, that is not edit warring! If you look at the edit history of that article you can see that an IP editor is adding vandalism to the page which Jgstokes and I were removing. The IP literally added a whole paragraph of blatant meme-driven vandalism at the same time. Again, WP:NOT3RR! I shouldn't have to defend edits that are so obviously okay. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if you are certain it was vandalism, there are other people who can handle it. Since when has Wikipedia's policy been that we should ignore certain vandalism in the hopes that someone else will remove it? Blocking someone from editing an article based on that logic is ridiculous. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I second what Adamstom is saying, adding unsourced info clearly should be reverted and can't be considered edit-warring on the reverter. —El Millo (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I fear I'm not able to express myself clearly and the point isn't being brought home. Look, this isn't clear vandalism. Yet, you've reverted it twice. WP:3RR isn't a permission slip to revert three times and not get blocked until the fourth. That's not how it works. If it was vandalism, you've made no effort to communicate with the IP that their edits are considered vandalism. Their talk page at User talk:69.226.184.26 remains a redlink. There's a whole series of warning templates beginning with Template:Uw-vandalism1 that you should be using to instruct an editor regarding their edits. Alternatively, you could use Template:Uw-unsourced1. At least try to communicate. There is nothing at WP:3RRNO that applies here. This isn't clear vandalism. Unsourced? Yes, but that's not an exception to 3RR. Casting about the net, I do find some scuttlebutt about a potential third season. I can't reliably source it, but it does lend the possibility that this is a good faith edit by the IP, even if its misguided. This isn't clear vandalism. WP:3RRNO does not apply. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP editor added blatant, undeniable vandalism to the article, so I was not assuming good faith. At the same time, they added something unsourced that may not be clear vandalism to you, but to anyone who knows the topic it is also obviously just made up and needs to be reverted. Myself and another user removed the edits because we happened to be online at the time, but there are a bunch of other people watching the page who would have done the same if they saw it first. It is not edit warring, it is reverting vandalism. You are pulling a diff to make it look like I just reverted a potentially reasonable change, which looks bad considering the current situation I am in, but that is ignoring a whole bunch of basic context which explains the issue perfectly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this clear vandalism? When was Morbius released? April 1st. The IP editor appears to be correct. Was their commentary non-encyclopedic? Yes. Was it "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."? No. I'm at a loss as to how to convince you that your reverts are out of line and not covered by WP:3RRNO. Even if you disagree with me on this, can you at least agree to attempt to communicate with editors using the above templates I mentioned? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do communicate with other editors, a lot. You are acting like all I do is revert and never talk and I can send you hundreds if not thousands of diffs proving that wrong. We are not talking about disagreements with reasonable editors where discussions and templates can be used, we are talking about IP editors adding vandalism which editors like me have to deal with at film and TV articles literally every day. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Count me as a third voice here backing ; I'm flabbergasted he was blocked. His reverts are entirely rational responses to clear vandalism or attempts to add uncited or poorly cited (Forbes Contributors and literal Reddit posts?) content from WP:TEND IPs. This block should be overturned immediately; the fact is apparently threatening a sitewide ban over this is patently absurd on the face of it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to accept that I am wrong. Would you please explain to me how this is obvious vandalism covered by WP:3RRNO "such as page blanking and adding offensive language."? Would you please explain to me how this is also obvious vandalism covered by WP:3RRNO? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Morbius was the first movie kicking off the “Morbius Saga” which we have little to none information on right now. Expect to see more movies like “Avengers: The Morb Dynasty” and “Avengers: Morb Wars” This is about as obvious as vandalism gets, any attempt to defend this addition would be laughable. The fact that you don't see this as vandalism proves my point: you clearly must not know about the Morbius memes and jokes that are all over certain parts of the internet which have inspired this, but anyone who does can tell you that this is blatant vandalism (especially at a completely unrelated article, Loki (season 2) has nothing to do with Morbius let alone fake future movies inspired by the recently announced Avengers films). Once again your lack of understanding of the topic means you don't see what is actually going on here, which isn't your fault but you shouldn't be making decisions such as who gets blocked based on something that you don't know anything about. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The first is unsourced information regurgitating a popular internet meme that has nothing to do with the content of the article. It would be like adding "Shrek's favorite color is green" to an article about the color yellow; reverting that from a clearly trolling IP would not be a violation of 3RR.. The second is patently false and not backed up by the citation it was inserted to; because this information is factually incorrect and being inserted in fromt of a source that says otherwise, it doesn't violate 3RR.
 * I'm actually somewhat concerned that you don't see the problem with either of these two edits,, and the fact you are considering blocking people over reverting them concerns me even more. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok fine. I've unblocked. But, let me be unequivocally clear. Adamstom.97, you have engaged in a pattern of edit warring. You yourself have acknowledged this. We're going to have to agree to disagree that your subsequent actions on the article did or did not constitute edit warring. But, if your edit warring continues, there will be consequences. I've attempted, and failed, to bring home the seriousness of your actions and disregard for communicating with the IP you claim was vandalizing. I won't be blocking you again. But, if the pattern continues I will be recommending a block. I have been attempting (and failing) to reason with you about how you are violating policy. Maybe that's on me, maybe that's on you. Regardless, the point remains. Your self-acknowledged edit warring is out of line and can not be accepted. This behavior must stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for unblocking me, though I am a bit concerned that you seem to have just decided it isn't worth arguing rather than actually believing what myself and Toa are saying about the underlying issues. Edit warring is bad, yes, but so is going around blocking people for reverting blatant vandalism because you don't understand the context of the topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We are going to have to agree to disagree on whether it constituted blatant vandalism per WP:3RRNO. I didn't, and still don't see it. My role here in this context is to stop disruption to the project. That's what was happening in my eyes, and I continue to maintain that was the case. Regardless, the dispute erupting here was itself becoming disruptive to the project. There's no point to it. Or, at least I hope there is no point to it; I sincerely hope the message has been brought home that edit warring is a serious issue. I don't expect this to re-erupt. Since you seem likely to feel you are in dispute with me, I'm going to err on the side of caution in regards to WP:INVOLVED and presume any subsequent admin actions by me regarding you will be potentially considered in breach of that. That being the possible case, my warning (not threat..I do not, have not, and will not threaten) about recommending a block stands. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If the edit about Morbius doesn't seem intentional vandalism to you, it's because you're not at all familiar with the content, and all the meme culture that has arisen around that film. If multiple editors knowledgeable on the subject are saying that it is obvious vandalism, you should believe them. The edit adding "and third" could be good faith on its own, but coupled with the other one, it's clear it's just more intentional vandalism. —El Millo (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What Hammersoft has been emphasising here they, which is being ignored, is that the proper response to vandalism generally includes warning the editor, or otherwise attempting to communicate with them. Yeah, I know that drive-by IPs, usually dynamic, seldom ever see the warnings, but it's still proper procedure for addressing vandalism. I regulary warn IPs for vandalism, even those I didn't revert, beacuse Twinkle makes it so easy to warn. The main reason I do this is because most admins are unwilling to block IPs that haven't been warned properly, aside from egregious examples of vandalism. I think a commitment from Adam to warn vandals would go a long way towards addressing Hammer's concerns here. BilCat (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you are the second person to mention Twinkle to me recently and, though I have heard of it over the years, I've never really understood exactly what it does or whether it was worth setting up (WP:TW mostly discusses maintenance stuff). Do you mind elaborating on how you use it / find it useful? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Twinkle makes a lot of various tasks easier. I was never able to manually file an AFD, and Twinkle makes it easy to do that, and numerous other filings including RPPs, CSDs, etc. It also simplifies issuing warnings to users, which is what my comment was in reference too. There's a host of other things it can do also, and it's fairly simple to set up and use. I don't know what browsers it does or doesn't work with, but main Twinkle page should explain it. BilCat (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at setting it up, I am literally in the middle of dealing with new vandalism and unsourced addition issues at the moment and it is such a pain trying to add user warnings manually, which is why I usually wouldn't bother for "drive-by IPs" doing run-of-the-mill vandalism. Thanks for the help. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I totally understand. There are several other warning/revert scripts and programs available if Twinkle proves not to be to your liking, but I've only used Twinkle. It can also revert, then open the user's talk page so you can add a warning. That's extremely useful when reverting a series of edits, vandalism or not. It saves a lot of time. BilCat (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The couple warnings I've just added were very easy! Thanks again! - adamstom97 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome. BilCat (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate User Talk Messages
I'd like to apologise for the messages I left on your talk page, particularly how it was put in the second one. Over the last few days, when I've heard some of the words I used come up, it's just really made me feel bad for saying it, regardless of the reasons I had, at the time. I don't necessarily expect you to accept my apology, but I'd just like to have it known; it's taken this long because I've just been avoiding Wikipedia, for a few days.

However, I'd like it to be clear, I don't regret adding the average Discovery TV ratings, I still think the viewership section is the right place for it, and I also don't think your eagerness to repeatedly revert it without a full discussion was right. Once again, I apologise for the messages, and how I left them, because they made the issue attacks on character, which stops it from being anything else, and it shouldn't be. -- Bacon Noodles  (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries, I accept your apology and hope that we can move on. I stand by my position on the reruns, but I don't begrudge you for feeling the opposite. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
Hi Adam. Me and Zoo have spent a bit under 2 months working on c/e-ing, ref organizing the MCU Spider-Man page in preparation for a GAN. Since you've done multiple GA reviews in the past, could you review it once you've the time? (You're working on SDCC updates and replying on multiple discussions, don't want to disturb you) — SirDot (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You there? — SirDot (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note, per the message at the top of my talk page, that I can't always reply to messages straight away. I've popped on to do a couple of things during the day but was waiting until after work when I could log onto my computer before I took a look at this. I don't think it was an unreasonable amount of time to respond. As for your question, are you asking me to be the actual GA reviewer or did you just want me to have a look over it before you nominated? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * GA reviewer. — SirDot (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to make a habit of it, but I should be able to make the time for this one to help you out. I see that you are reviewing the Thanos article for GA at the moment, if I was able to do the Spider-Man review soonish, would you consider delaying the finish of that GA review to see if mine gives any insight into what updates might still be needed for that article? I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but taking a quick look at both articles I can see some things that I would definitely want to get addressed before either of them became GA (especially if these will set the precedent for other MCU character articles). - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure! Since the beginning of the Thanos review I placed it on hold for a month and I'm actually not even halfway through the article yet (kind-of forgetting). And if you don't have enough time, that's fine. Anyways, thanks! — SirDot (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

 * thank you very much! Unfortunately it is going to be an ongoing issue with this article, but so far we are managing it. I did want to say that I saw you responding to the talk page messages and usually I would jump in to help there as well, but I am trying to avoid the toxic debate from certain individuals where I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

[|Ms. Marvel (TV series)]
How you can say it is not neutral? if the dialogues are biased and not represent the narrative of the region in series that is specifically made to for the region representation with actors also from there, then obviously the audience and publications from that region will react negatively on it. 39.34.174.39 (talk)
 * The wording you added to the article was clearly biased. You need to present information in an objective way without letting your own point of view cloud it. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A weird thing with the Across the Spider-Verse article
Okay, here's something weird I'm confused about. In the source code for Across the Spider-Verse, it is: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is an upcoming American computer-animated superhero film featuring the Marvel Comics character Miles Morales / Spider-Man, produced by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation in association with Marvel. Distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing, it is a sequel to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) and is set in a shared multiverse of alternate universes called the "Spider-Verse". The film is directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson from a screenplay by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham. Shameik Moore voices Gwen Stacy / Spider-Woman. The film was officially announced in November 2019 and animation work began in June 2020, with a different visual style for each of the six universes visited by the characters.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is scheduled to be released in the United States on June 2, 2023, delayed from an initial April 2022 date due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A third film, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, is set to be released in March 2024. A female-focused spin-off film is also in development.

However, I only see it as only 2 paragraphs:

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is an upcoming American computer-animated superhero film featuring the Marvel Comics character Miles Morales / Spider-Man, produced by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation in association with Marvel. Distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing, it is a sequel to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) and is set in a shared multiverse of alternate universes called the "Spider-Verse". The film is directed by Joaquim Dos Santos, Kemp Powers, and Justin K. Thompson from a screenplay by Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and David Callaham. Shameik Moore voices Miles Morales / Spider-Man. The film was officially announced in November 2019 and animation work began in June 2020, with a different visual style for each of the six universes visited by the characters.

Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is scheduled to be released in the United States on June 2, 2023, delayed from an initial April 2022 date due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A third film, Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse, is set to be released in March 2024. A female-focused spin-off film is also in development.

I looked through the history and it looks like it was done by me? It's not in any diff. My theory it was inspect-elemented, the reason there is no changes in the source code but a change visually. — SirDot (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the original, visually correct article. I would like input on why I saw it as 2 paragraphs though. — SirDot (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See this diff, the first comment is missing one of the end dashes (-> instead of -->) so everything after the comment also got hidden until the end of the next comment which did have the correct number. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The Rings of Power
I just wanted to drop you a line to apologize for my hasty meddling with the Rings of Power article. I can see from the page's statistics that you've put a tremendous amount of time and effort into it, and it was silly of me to think that the few casual changes that I ventured might improve it. Good luck with the additions that you'll no doubt be making to it in the coming months and years—it'll probably end up as a kind of Wikipedian Everest (or should I say Taniquetil?) as extraordinary as the show itself! Niggle1892 (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise, all editors are welcome but I'm always pretty upfront when I disagree with specific changes and am obviously keeping a close eye on the article due to the strong opinions that lots of people already have about the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so magnanimous. I think that actually it's part of the charm of New Zealand that Kiwis are usually pretty frank! I'm not sure if it's a breach of Wikipedian protocols to ask you a question not related to the article, but as you probably know more about the show than anyone else I've ever been in touch with, I can't resist the temptation to see if you can clarify something for me. I love all the Tolkien books and movies and I find the prospect of the TV show absolutely thrilling, but I have a broadband service too low-grade to be suitable for streaming videos. Have you ever heard any hint that the RoP might eventually come out on Blu-ray? Niggle1892 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't sorry, that is one of the big questions for all streaming services (especially since they can just remove content whenever they feel like). However, I do believe that other Amazon original series such as Jack Ryan and The Boys have been released on blu-ray so that seems promising. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm writing this from a little home cinema which has both Jack Ryan and The Boys on its shelves, so I agree that Amazon's willingness to release at least some of its shows physically is encouraging. On the other hand, I have a nasty feeling that attracting more subscribers to Prime is the very purpose for which TROP has been created, so I imagine that if the series ever does come out in a physical medium, it won't be for many, many years. Happily most of my predictions turn out to be wrong, so I hope that this'll prove to be just another instance of my palantir not working properly! Anyway, thank you for sparing a few moments for this chat, and best wishes from the other side of the planet. Niggle1892 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The Beat
You swapped a The Beat source (on the Harvey Awards nominations) for a GamesRadar+ source on the Ms. Marvel (TV series) article. Just wanted to flag that The Beat (www.comicsbeat.com) (run by Heidi MacDonald) is considered a reliable source per WikiProject Comics/References. In terms of comics news, I would consider both sources about equal. I'm not sure if the MCU project is developing its own list of reliable sources or not. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I couldn't see any clear proof of editorial oversight but if the author is considered reliable herself then that is fine. I will keep this in mind. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Question
I would like to know why you feel it is appropriate to use reflinks named <ref name="RacistBacklashDoG">, <ref name="RacistBacklashTheGamer"> , <ref name="RacistBacklashConversation"> , and <ref name="RacistBacklash/Film"> to describe valid if politically incorrect criticism of unconventional casting. I have searched online as best I can and am unable to find any actual evidence of racist language used by critics of said casting although certain left-wing sources (The Daily Beast, Time Magazine) described such criticism as racist but, sadly, we live in an age when any criticism of certain sacred cows is automatically (reactionarily?) described as racist, sexist, homophobic (largely in abeyance, in favor of "transphobic"), etc. in certain political environments and media fora. As you are in New Zealand, on he ground so to speak in terms of actual filming, perhaps you could unearth at least some of the alleged actual racist backlash showing actual racist language used firsthand. You are far younger than I am and doubtless more adept in cyberspace. I may not be looking in the right places for this material. I would appreciate it. Thanks. MurrayGreshler (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * During talk page discussions we agreed that there was enough commentary about the racist backlash for us to create a "Racist backlash" section, so that is why I named the references "RacistBacklash". Doesn't mean that I am against changing them, I don't think the section should actually be named "Racist backlash" when it is time to give it a subheading, but the way you made your changes was highly questionable and I think I was correct to restore the page (especially since you think criticizing the casting of non-white people is ). - adamstom97 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal
Your removal of the template from Star Trek: Discovery was hasty, and not justified by any of the nine reasons listed in WP:WTRMT. I have little interest in a revert war, but I must note my disappointment with your actions in this instance, your edit summary was provocative and not up to the standard of WP:ESDOS - specifically "Don't make snide comments." The issues with the lead were clearly documented in the addition of the template and remain. That an issue 'has always been like that' is not a valid justification for removing the template when you did - the issues relating to lack of clarity, confused paragraphing, and duplication of information have not been resolved at all. H. Carver (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I never made any "snide comments", I'm not at all sure how you interpreted my edit summary that way. You WP:BOLDly added a maintenance tag to an article that did not need it, per reasons 3 and 5 at WP:WTRMT as well as WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. I was well within my right to remove the template, and I'm not sure why you are being so aggressive about this. Many experienced editors work on this article and it follows all the guidelines and standards of MOS:TV and WP:TV, so it is by no means a poorly written lead that deserves to be tagged. That doesn't mean I think it cannot be improved, you are welcome to make specific suggestions for improving it at the article's talk page and if you do then I will join you for a civil conversation about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary concluded with "this tag is overblown/unnecessary". Even if you think that 'snide' is too harsh a description, it was still provocative and crossed a line. It would've been harsh even if I'd drive-by tagged the article. But for a good-faith tagging that clearly laid out the issues identified, it wasn't fair at all - it was, to use your own word, unnecessary.
 * WP:BRD is, as it itself says, optional, and BRD does not encourage reverting. It is not a policy I subscribe to in this particular case - because by removing the tag, you are removing what should be discussed. How are any other editors supposed to have a view on the issues raised if the issued raised are no longer visible? I would also refer to WP:BRD-NOT, in particular BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
 * Neither of the reasons you cite at WP:WTRMT apply in this instance. Reason 5 doesn't apply because the issues were never discussed so there was no chance for consensus to develop, and Reason 3 says Consider first discussing the matter with the original placer of the template, and you made no attempt to discuss it with me.
 * WP:STATUSQUO doesn't apply as no reverting has taken place. At the risk of helping you make your argument against me, I think WP:EDITCON better supports your view.
 * (I'm trying for some tongue-in-cheek humour there to undercut the tension and perhaps bring us to some common-ground rapprochement.)
 * I apologise if I came across as aggressive, that wasn't (and isn't) my intention - the register I was and am aiming for would be "disappointed and upset". I put a lot of thought into it before adding the tag, and I took care to fill out the reason for adding it.
 * I know that there are some issues which complicate the lead for Discovery compared to some other new Trek articles - the fact Discovery was responsible for launching the shows that followed, and the fact that the network rebranded - meaning it's not a straightforward task. And I am aware of MOS:TV and MOS:LEAD, and because of this, I knew that any quick edits I would make at that point to clarify the issues raised would actually lead breaching in particular the latter, by making the lead longer than four paragraphs. Which was one reason I judged that if I added the tag, it would give the 'experienced editors' the opportunity to address the issues while remaining within the guidelines.
 * As it stands, the lead is not "a quick introduction", and "a concise overview". Paragraph two is still two entirely separate things bolted together (for no apparent reason other than to keep within the four paragraph limit). The information about the premier should only be there once not twice - and I have to hold my hands up here, looking back I see I did err in saying "paragraphs three and four" when I should've said paragraphs one (Premiering in 2017) and three (It premiered on September 24, 2017).
 * Once again, I did not mean to come across as aggressive, I apologise for that. I simply wished to stress that my edit was carefully considered and in good faith, and that your rapid reversion without taking the issues raised into account was too hasty, and that at least part of your edit summary was unnecessarily provocative. I can see from the edit history of the article that you have had others edit-war with you before, and this might be why you have been a little trigger-happy. But I am not those editors.
 * Finally, I wish to note that the reason I am still yet to edit the article further to fix the issues myself is because I am yet to have the time, and it's not something I wish to half-arse - as I noted above, while there are a couple of quick fixes I could make, this would lead to the lead breaking the guidelines in other ways. H. Carver (talk) 23:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the detailed response and the fact that you haven't made any hasty edits to the article yet. I would also appreciate if you brought any suggestions you have for the lead to the article's talk page so I and the other interested editors over there can discuss. I do think the opening paragraph gives a good "quick introduction" to the series, but I can also see why it may be a little weird to see the arrangement for the next two paragraphs which used to be combined as one and were intended to be a general overview of the article's sections (hence why it goes cast, production, release, etc., based on the order of the article). Regarding the premiere year being mentioned twice, that was added based on talk page consensus so should definitely be discussed before changing. Originally the lead just had all of the release date information listed once, but some editors insisted that the year the series began should be in the first paragraph of the lead as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

RT average score
Hi. Regarding this, RT is not hiding any score. They accidentally added two reviews as season reviews, both rated 3.5/5 (7/10), therefore the average score was shown as 7/10 for a while. The scores of the episode reviews do not affect the overall average for now. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 13:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * When you go to the "see more details" pop up on the RT page for the season it has a field for the average score that has been going back and forth between having a value and being blank for some reason. Currently when I check the page it is blank again. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, they keep repeating what I wrote above. <small style="font color:black">ภץאคгöร 05:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't think I understood your first message very well but I am following now. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

GAN Spidey work update
Hi! Just to tell you (and probably remind you, it's been 3 weeks), I've begun work (the IRL stuff has been sorted out) on restructuring and adding new content/removing old content for the MCU Spidey article, to get it to GA status. — SirDot (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. I actually did forget, a lot on at the moment! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just checking in for an update, it has been a month now and while I am personally not in a rush to get this done I do think we shouldn't leave the review open for too long. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noted, agreed the GAN shouldn't be up long. I promise to get this done soon, you asked for quite some sources about a few different things. Trimmed FCB and sourced Peter's birthday, by the way. — SirDot (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures
Hello,

It appears that the upcoming TV show does indeed have Star Wars preceding the title. Per this article. I was wondering if you could help with the move (back) to the proper name. As it will not let me.

Thank you, AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am actually in the middle of making the same updates as you! Moving shortly. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Adamstom.97 hey! Just realized we're beating Wookieepedia. Always a goal of mine haha. Thanks for all the good work on the draft. AdmiralAckbar1977 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas, Adamstom.97! Have a quantumanic new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> —El Millo (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. —El Millo (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Trailblazer101 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:What If... Captain Carter Fought the Hydra Stomper?
Hello, Adamstom.97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:What If... Captain Carter Fought the Hydra Stomper?, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Adamstom.97!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Adamstom.97, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Abishe (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)