User talk:Bluestarnova

February 2023
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to Ryan Ottley, as we really appreciate your participation. However, several portions of the edits had to be reverted, mainly for the following two reasons:

First, you blanked a couple of sections from the article, but without providing a rationale in your edit summaries, that seemed to explain this, as the only one edit that included a summary was the first one, in which you wrote, "accuracy of projects, added credits". When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history.

Second, you added some material that was not accompanied by cited sources. Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. For now, don't worry, as I added several citations to the passages to you added. In the future, though, please make sure you include these yourself.

I have retained the other edits you made to the article, including the Infobox portrait, which is a really nice photo.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry, but your reverts to my edits violate a number of policies and guidelines, which I explained above.


 * "The changes omitted were due to it looking unprofessional when conventions take info from this wiki and use it on their websites."
 * There is nothing "unprofessional" about the manner in which the article was composed. I copyedited the article to add clarified wording, changed an inappropriately-written all-caps book title to a properly written one, attributed a previously unattributed opinion to the author cited in a source, added several citations to uncited material that you added to the article (as I stated above), removed material for which I could not find a source. All of this made the article look better written, better organized, more in line with Wikipedia standards, and therefore, more professional. To argue that you version looks more professional is absurd. Nothing about the fact that conventions utilize that info changes this, an any event, Wikipedia does not answer to conventions.


 * "It's not important that he was fired..."
 * In your opinion. In Ottley's opinion, it was relevant enough that he discussed it in the cited source, which supports that passage.


 * "...and it seems to give credit to his old job for firing him seems unprofessional."
 * No it does not. The passage simply says that he has discussed how he got into the industry after being fired from his previous job, which, as mentioned above, he indeed has.


 * "Also added info about Ottleys credit. Just added to his creator credit since it wasn't mentioned."
 * I don't know which credits you're referring to, but as I mentioned above, I retained a number of the credits you added, and added required citations to them. If there's a specific credit that you believe I removed without just cause, please point it, and we can discuss it.


 * "Also the part i omitted with the walking dead cover sounds a little over the top, He's done many covers for TWD, also a full book called Rick Grimes2000"
 * The 100th issue of a book is significant milestone, which is why they tend to be covered in news articles, like the TV Guide article that is cited for that passage in his article. That's the basis of inclusion on Wikipedia: coverage in sources. If TV Guide thought it signficant enough to cover, then it's reasonable to include, and is not "over the top."


 * In addition to the above, by making what appears to be a mostly blanket revert, you ended up reverting parts of the article that are not explained by your edit summary, and therefore were done without any apparent rationale, despite the fact that these edits violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These include:
 * Restoring the second and redundant introductory wording at the top of the career section. The lede sections of articles are written as their introduction.
 * You deleted a considerable amount of information I had added the article, including several citations I added to uncited material that you had addded in your previous edit.
 * You restored an unattributed opinion to the article, in violation of WP:NPOV, even though I had removed it and replaced it with an opinion explicitly attributed to the critic whose review was cited, which fixed this problem.
 * Reverting the Infobox portrait, even though you were the one who changed it to new one.
 * Changing the name "Image Comics" to "Image comics", when that name is a proper noun, and needs to be capitalized.
 * Changing the date format in the caption of the Wizard World sketching photo, in violation of WP:DATESNO.
 * Reverting the book title Hulk to the all-caps HULK, when that is not how it is properly written, since the all-caps form is a stylistic convention used by the publisher, and not how it is properly written in reference sources. Of note is the fact that you did not feel it necessary to change this in the places in the article that mention that book.


 * In summary, your edits do not conform to the various rules and conventions by which the editing community here on Wikipedia writes and maintains articles, and are not justified (and in my cases, even explained) by the edit summary in which you provided for them.


 * Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page, as I'd be more than happy to help you. But please do not blanket revert other editors' edits without understanding these policies and guidelines. Doing so may be seen as disruptive edting, and will result in your edits being reverted by other members of the community. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)