User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Adamstom.97. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Iron Fist (season 1) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello! This is a generic message created and copied to all editors using scripts that I have created. As I have recently changed my username from "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21", any scripts that I have created that are listed at your common.js page may, at the moment, no longer be working. To fix this, simply update all occurrences of "User:AlexTheWhovian" to "User:Alex 21"; see here for an example. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The article The Defenders (miniseries) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Defenders (miniseries) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

[1] Yeah, that works. I don't think I could have read the original wording as supporting your reading (it really looked like "perceived" was saying "it was perceived this way but it actually wasn't"), but your edit has basically cleared it up anyway. I'm not entirely sure the source supports it (and I would prefer if it were also cited in the Black Panther article for the continuity error the timeline apparently creates there, although then again I've gone on at enough length about the odd royal succession rules between Marvel films and between the international releases of the same Marvel film), but it's basically okay as is now. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Edits like this are not helpful. Please don't do that again. Also, using the edit summary to make accusations of WP:HOUNDing is wrong. If you honestly believe there is behavioral conduct issues with the editor, there are numerous avenues for you to pursue: WP:AN/I, WP:RFARB. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are, but please don't come to my talk page and tell me what to do. I was unable to report the user because they are friends with an admin and have threatened to have me banned if I do things that they don't like. The above section was an attempt to avoid future conflicts entirely, but it sounds like the user is no longer interested. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to do anything. Merely giving you some helpful advice going forward. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so I've been giving this a lot of thought. I can't take much more of this dispute that I've been having with you, Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat, and I think the project would not benefit from the natural conclusion that would be drawn out if we didn't find some way to get along. As much as I may feel your edits are out of line with my standards, I must admit that, credit where credit is due, you keep a tight ship on an area of the encyclopedia that, without you, would be an even heavier magnet for edits that I think we can all agree, do not benefit the project.[2] For this, you have my thanks.

Therefore, I would like to propose a peace under the following terms.

1. You agree not to revert my edits to articles without prior talk page discussion. This applies only to plain reverts, not to edits that address my concerns such as this. As for discussion, at least one uninvolved editor should agree that the edit should be reverted, or the edit should remain intact pending such discussion; otherwise, the article (or the portion of the article relevant to my edit) should return to the status quo as of, say, one month before my initial edit, to allow for the circumstance that my edit was itself a revert and therefore protected under the BRD process.
2. I agree not to interfere if/when you revert any other editor.
3. Assuming adherence to both the above clauses, I agree not to accuse you of WP:OWN, WP:TAGTEAM or WP:EW.
4. You and TriiipleThreat agree to help Favre1fan93 clean up any copyvio issues with his past edits. I agree to act in an advisory role if, and only if, my input is requested.
5. I agree not to edit the CCI request further, unless requested to do so.
6. I agree not to push the copyvio issue further than necessary, and not to pursue any action beyond cleaning up the articles. This includes requesting that you or any other editor be blocked from editing as a consequence of either the original copyvio or any action related to its removal.
7. You agree not to make any comment to the effect that I am "trumping up" the copyvio issue in order to pursue actions against one or more editors with whom I have had disputes that had nothing to do with copyright.
8. I agree not to post any MCU-related articles to WP:GAR or WP:FLRC, for copyvio or any other reason.
9. I agree to withdraw this comment, and to refrain from comment on any future MCU-related GAN, FLC, FTC, etc.
10. You agree to retract this accusation of "hounding", and agree never to accuse me of "hounding" again without prior community or ArbCom consensus that what I have done constitutes hounding.

Note that the above terms are negotiable to a point, and you are under no obligation to accept immediately. I will gauge your reaction before posting similar proposals on the talk pages of User:TriiipleThreat and User:Favre1fan93. Note also that none of the "I agree" clauses are meant to be construed as threats of the type "If you don't accept this peace offer, I will do this": I have of course stated several times that I don't want anyone blocked for the copyvio; similarly I was already commenting on these GANs months ago, and this is an offer to unilaterally stop doing so for the sake of this peace offering.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for doing this. I appreciate you trying to rise above it all and find a solution. While I fear that any attempts to work out our relationship may be challenged by the fact that we apparently end up taking the exact opposite positions in most discussions, I am happy to try and am taking some time to consider what you have said here. In the meantime, I have responded in the various areas that we currently have discussions. I think those comments make clear what my current feelings are regarding everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

It is good to know that you are considering my proposal. However, I have had to add an extra clause since this edit summary implies you are still denying that there is any copyright violation, and insisting that I am "only doing it to be disruptive or because of a personal quarrel"[3], even though I have a strong history of dealing with copyright violations by multiple other editors with whom I had no personal quarrel. Your insisting that this is just about me acting in bad faith (which you repeated here) implies you have already rejected clause 4, which clause assumes you recognize that the copyvio exists.

I am not asking you to explicitly accept all of these terms immediately, but I would ask that you don't needlessly go around flouting them indefinitely while I wait for your response -- I have no intention of (a) interfering if/when you revert any other editor, editing the CCI request further, posting any MCU-related articles to GAR or FLRC, or commenting on any future MCU-related GAN, FLC, FTC, etc., and I would ask for you not to needlessly antagonize me as you have been.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is where it all breaks down for me, because the only reason that I would agree to such a clause is if I believed that you were not WP:HOUNDING someone AND that you will never do it again in the future. But I don't really believe that, and if you sincerely think that you can never do anything wrong then I don't think there is much point in trying to reason with you. I have made mistakes in the past just like anyone else, and I am aware of them and can only try to improve my behaviour moving forward. But you never seem to admit when you are wrong, and can't comprehend that other people can have differing opinions from you that are not automatically inferrior to your own. I don't know if I will get a response to this message, but I would just like to say for the record that I am very open to the sort of arrangement that you have proposed here, but only if it places us on equal ground. The wording you have used is designed to protect you from me, but I personally feel that I need to be protected from you as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given this some thought, and I see what you mean about our conversations here. I belive that is some ways I have unintentionally acted in bad faith. I just don't know what to do with myself sometimes. I still do belive that there isn't enough justification to have a separate article, but I want to show good faith in this case, would you forgive me for my poor conduct if I recant my AFD? I don't want to be remebered as a dick on this site, I really don't, and I feel like I'm being a dick right now to someone who doesn't deserve it at all. I hope you can forgive me.★Trekker (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it is all just a little unfortunate how it has played out. I was pretty confident with the Venom discussion because I have been through that several times already, and the current version still seems to be the best option based on what we know. As for Silver & Black, I wish you had just started a normal talk page discussion instead going full tit to AFD, but what's done is done. For now, I still think having the article is the best use of that content for now, and per WP:NOHURRY I don't see any need to remedy your concerns until we have a bit more information. By the way, Draft:Sony's Marvel Universe is likely to be moved to the mainspace in the next few months which could help. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm so glad that you forgave me. You're a very big person for that.★Trekker (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		You're a good guy, thank you.★Trekker (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

On 13 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marvel Comics' chief creative officer Joe Quesada made his directorial debut with the first episode of the digital series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see my vomment in Template talk:Star Trek: Discovery. Thanks, DGtal (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Iron Fist (season 1) 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:Iron Fist (season 1) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Somehow there was an edit conflict and I undid your last revert at that GAN. I'd have restored it, but there are a couple problems: first, you really don't want to be caught editwarring (and, yes, it's considered editwarring even when it's three separate people doing it). You also do not want to be uttering personal attacks, such as accusing people of "hounding" or "condoning hounding", particularly when there's already a message there not to do so. If hounding is a real concern, please take the allegations to ANI and have the community determine whether they are well grounded.

If the close paraphrasing concerns have been addressed, please include a diff on the review page—there's nothing on the page right now to indicate that's the case. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There were no genuine close paraphrasing concerns, so no diff is required. It is also not my place to take this specific incident to ANI, but that does not change the fact that someone was very clearly hounding several editors (and pointing out a fact is not a personal attack). - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There's an example demonstrating close paraphrasing on the page. It hasn't been dealt with there, so if it's been dealt with elsewhere, it requires a diff to demonstrate so.

You'll want to stop accusing people of "hounding" now—you've been warned several times now, and WP:NPA makes it clear that doing so constitutes a personal attack, which is sanctionable. Your options are to stop, or to take it to the appropriate channels. Please don't respond with another such accusation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The article Iron Fist (season 1) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Iron Fist (season 1) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MPJ-DK -- MPJ-DK (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The article The Defenders (miniseries) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Defenders (miniseries) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello Adamstom.97,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The article The Defenders (miniseries) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Defenders (miniseries) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the peace talks? I've essentially stuck to all the terms I proposed back in January (excepting my promise to retract my FT !vote if you agreed) but you just let the section be archived without ever indicating you gave it a second thought. I'm still game, if you are... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't noticed, I haven't been all that active on Wikipedia over the last couple of months thanks in no small part due to your treatment of me. I have only just done a bit of work over the last couple weekends really, when I've had a bit of spare time. Regardless, we never agreed to those terms as the last comment in the discussion you linked is me expressing concerns about it, and you chose to quit Wikipedia instead of reply. Since we never agreed to anything, and I haven't been that active anyway, I didn't think twice before reverting your nonsense when I saw it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"My treatment of you"!? You mean when I offered you a very handsome peace settlement and you spat in my face? And how dare you call my policy-backed interim removal of premature WP:SPECULATION nonsense? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your "handsome peace settlement" was a nice idea, but you pretty quickly convinced me that it would not really protect me from your abuse and was simply designed to stop me and others from standing up to you. Also, I am very much aware that you are talking behind my back, and if Swarm decides that I am the one who deserves to be punished for what I have had to go through then I guess that will be that. But I have received some very nice messages from some of your other victims encouraging me not to give up this hobby that I love simply because of you, so I will endeavor to continue improving this encyclopaedia regardless of your next move. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Venom (2018 film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Any further edit warring or article ownership problems will result in much longer blocks. You've already been given a final warning lodged at WP:RESTRICT, so I think this is a very lenient block for someone who has reverted almost every edit made to Venom (2018 film) in the past 24 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I apologise for edit warring and technically breaking 3RR, and will accept that this is the punishment I deserve for not going to the talk page earlier. I have been here long enough to know better. However, I would like to ask you two things: firstly, how was it that you knew of this, seeing as how I received no notification of any discussions regarding my behaviour here; and secondly, do you honestly believe that being someone who has reverted almost every edit made to Venom (2018 film) in the past 24 hours is a bad thing? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I found this the same way I just found and blocked an impersonation account – Special:RecentChanges. 3RR is not about the quality of the edits you revert; it's a behavorial issue. Please keep in mind that 3RR is only a bright-line rule. You can still be blocked for reverting fewer than four times. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you believe that reverting at all is a problem regardless of what is being reverted? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy makes clear that whether the revert is justifiable is not a defense: An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. The exceptions are at WP:3RRNO, and generally include BLP violations, overt vandalism, content illegal in the United States, edits from sock puppets, etc. It's frustrating sometimes, but that's the policy. Sometimes articles go in directions that you don't approve, and you just have to deal with it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But surely there is room to recognise the difference between restoring to a preferred version and reverting edits that violate Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, the reality is that in the sorts of articles I have on my watchlist (film and TV articles) there can be as many as dozens of edits every day that violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines and should be reverted. Whether it is an IP editor or just a new user who hasn't learned the rules yet, and whether they are randomly deleting whole sections, adding unsourced content, or changing something that was agreed upon after a months-long community discussion, just allowing these edits to remain isn't really an option for any of the regular editors that I know (I am far from the only person who deals with this at these pages). I am completely aware that this can come across as an ownership issue, but that is just how it works at these articles, which I have come to realise is not something that editors used to other areas of Wikipedia have experienced before. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Venom (2018 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

There is zero evidence in the "Critical reception" section that critics plural disliked the film "for its script and inconsistent tone". It is [[WP:OR|original research through synthesis to claim this. Or that its box office success was "unexpected". To claim these things without any sourcing to back them is in violation of policy. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Erik: As I made very clear to you in my reverts, I disagree with your interpretation here. When did it become appropriate for one editor to decide whose opinion is right and whose is wrong? I may be the one who was disciplined for this little incident, but you very much started the edit warring and did not help anyone by insisting on re-reverting me rather than starting a talk page discussion. You know better than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Adam, the problem is that, regardless of who opens the talk page discussion and when (in my recent EW incident with you there had been a talk page discussion open for weeks with "consensus" for my version, and neither of us, sadly, noticed it until later), you need to actually be willing to discuss with the other party, and to accept the clear word of policy on the matter -- what you repeatedly wrote in this section (that I was the one speculating by creating hypothetical alternate interpretations on the talk page, even though I am allowed to do that because it is on the talk page while your speculation was inserted into the article) despite me repeatedly asking you to stop definitely was not "discussion", and it did not help the situation, and would not have prevented an edit war if it happened before rather than after. I've found this behaviour to be pretty typical of you, and so it's really very difficult for me not to take Erik's side when you say the same thing to him that you said to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There you go again, assuming that your interpretation is correct and mine is wrong. Is it so hard for you to believe that you are not all-knowing? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

By sheer coincidence, I was feeling nostalgic and looked over Talk:History of Japan/Archive 11 during lunch today: I admitted I was wrong, hiding nothing, multiple times there, despite the other party actively accusing me of always thinking myself right. You on the other hand can be seen deflecting fault as recently as one section up and as long ago as this. Would you care to apologize for the above groundless accusation? I don't even need an apology: just a convincing statement that you won't do it again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Do what again? Be attacked by you at my talk page while I am trying my best to make peace with you one section up? Also, evidence that you acted decently in a discussion many years ago does not change your actions here and now. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Do what again? Engage in evasion when someone points out that you are wrong (as for example with the copyvio above) and hypocritically transfer that onto someone else (as you are doing to me here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so things have been pretty rough, it seems. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my initial proposal, but I'm prepared to hear your terms as well; you don't have to accept all of mine as is, and I was hoping you'd present some amendments and we could hash the whole thing out. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: As you can see, I got blocked, and I'm sure you will get some enjoyment out of seeing that, but to be clear, I wrote this response before that happened and it has not affected my decisions here at all:

The truth is that we can only move on from our past issues if we both put the effort in and try to be professional about it all. With that in mind, here is my counter-proposal. Think of it as a starting point.

1. If either of us revert the other, for whatever reason, we go straight to the talk page. No re-reverting unless agreed upon first. I would prefer this approach to your first point because I think it is important to return to the WP:STATUSQUO immediately rather than allow a contentious change to remain in the article for however long it takes us to discuss and agree on the issue. If either of us was to re-revert the other by mistake, they can of course self-revert and go straight to the talk page and nothing more of it need be said.

2. Any personal concerns that we have with one another be taken immediately to our talk pages for private discussion, leaving the article talk pages free for content discussion. This should be done with all good faith assumed: if I think you have said something dismissive or are harping on too much about something at a talk page, I will come to your talk page and explain my concerns; if you think I am getting too close to WP:OWN, you come here and explain why you are concerned. No templating the regulars, no accusations until both sides have explained their positions, and no reporting to ANI or admins or anything until an attempt has been made to hash it out in private. As an extension of this, if either of us believe that the other has violated this clause, that too should be taken to their talk page and explained, with the assumption that it is a mistake until proven otherwise.

3. Any talk page discussions in the mainspace should make no reference to past discussions or behaviour, except for when the same issue has been discussed previously and the mention is simply to point to where that earlier discussion is or explain what the consensus of said discussion was. This is to avoid bringing any unnecessary baggage to future discussions, and help both of us stay focused on the problem at hand.

4. Neither of us go out of our way to talk down about the other to the rest of the community, which is something that I know you have done, and that I know that you know that I have done. This doesn't include situations where we are reporting one another for disciplinary concerns, but my hope is that clause 2. above will avoid any such situations anyway.

5. We have a preliminary discussion on the agreement of this proposal to go over the specific issue that you have with me regarding WP:OWN, so that we better understand each other's perspectives on that and hopefully lay stronger foundations for future discussion where that may be an issue.

6. We work together to address your copyvio concern. I will not accept you giving me a bunch of articles and telling me that they are plagiarised, because I simply do not agree with you on that. However, I would never claim that any article on Wikipedia is perfect, and I am willing to work with you in very specific and intentional ways to improve the articles that I have worked on before. My suggestion would be that we pick one article at a time, and start a discussion at its talk page or at one of ours where we go through each section and address any areas of concern regarding the prose that you may have. It may take a long time, and I won't always be able to respond quickly, but I will do my best to work with you on this if you are willing.

7. You never, ever tell me what I can and cannot say again. This is a pretty big one for me, because you do it all the time, and no matter how justified you think you are in saying it, it is rude and disrespectful. That means no telling me to strike out a part of a comment I made that I dislike, no telling me to remove something from my user page or talk page, and absolutely none of this. If you have a problem with something I say, or something that is visible in my user space, then you can discuss that with me as a mature adult and ask nicely. Why not pick out specific wording of mine that you think is inappropriate and suggest a better way to phrase it? There are plenty of better ways to approach such as situation than how you usually do.

8. Try to be positive. Editing on Wikipedia shouldn't be a drag on either of us, after all I know that I am here because I enjoy doing this and am happy to dedicate a lot of my spare time to it when it is going well and I am having fun. Whether we are disagreeing on the interpretation of a source, or taking issue with how the other has spoken to us in a discussion, I think it is important that we try to do so as positively as possible moving forward.

Let me know what you think of this proposal. Note that I am not interested in any of your original clauses where an agreement would be made to never accuse the other of a specific violation, for example. That is because I believe we are both guilty, to some extent, of at least some of the things we have been accused of before, and saying that they never will be an issue again is unrealistic. That is why I have proposed my 2nd point above, in the hopes that we can get ahead of any accusations without pretending like we are both perfect. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, you've given me your terms. That's good. Now we can discuss, and I'm confident we can come to some sort of agreement. Note that with the exception of 6. (see below) none of the concerns expressed below amount to "I am not willing to accept that". This is supposed to be a discussion, and we're going to hash out the final terms here. (Please note that my original terms for you were meant to be sent to both Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat once I had discussed them with you; the same cannot be done with most of these terms as they appear to relate specifically to disputes I have had with you, and not them.)

1. I do not disagree with this clause, and it basically matches my own, except that WP:STATUSQUO is a bit ambiguous; if Favre1fan93 or TriiipleThreat or someone added text to an article one week or one month ago, someone immediately challenged it on the talk page, and it stayed in anyway despite a lack of discussion, and I revert it after a week or a month, does my revert remain in place while discussion occurs, or are you allowed revert me? Another problem here is that if I make this agreement with you, can't TT or F1F93 just override it and force your version through despite any agreement between the two of us?

2. I agree, but only if you can promise me that Alex21 will never jump in to any of my disputes with you again. Never.

3. The problem here is that I have found that you (and F1F93 and TT) have a tendency to make the same mistakes repeatedly on a large number of articles. An example is that "shares continuity" thing. Do I have to win a debate on every single article individually in order to affect the same change on each one.

4. I will agree to this, but only if you can promise me that Alex21 will never jump in to any of my disputes with you again. Never.

5. Similarly to 1. above, the problem here is that if I agree to stop saying you WP:OWN articles, or whatever it is you want, and you stop automatically opposing any changes I make to articles in "your wheelhouse" (which is my concern -- although I've seen you do it to others as well: I was not at all involved in the discussion that led to your editing restriction), you can just call on F1F93, TT or A21 to revert me for you; or, heck; you don't even need to call them, since I've found pretty much the exact same problem with them.

6. This is the only one of your proposals that I am, regretfully, not willing to budge on. I have already done far more work in cleaning up the copyvio issue than I initially intended, and than I ever wanted to. To expect the editor who notices a problem to do the heavy lifting of addressing that problem him/herself completely turns how Wikipedia works on its head. Additionally, what does F1F93's copyvio issue have to do with my dispute with you? The fact that when I went back to the page histories and found that every single piece of closely paraphrased text went back to one user, and that user was the one of the three of you with which I had the least prior negative engagement, is proof enough that I wasn't "looking for" a plagiarism problem and I haven't been "trumping up" bogus charges just to get my enemies in trouble, since if I were going to do that it certainly wouldn't be F1F93 I targeted. Anyway, if you want to clean up the copyvio, it really shouldn't be me you're talking to. Note that this appears to be a direct response to clause 4. of my proposal, which would have required you to help F1F93 clean up the problem. However, the only user who is obliged (under a certain interpretation) by policy to do the heavy lifting of copyvio-sweeping is F1F93; if you are going to use the copyvio to create work for me as part of a peace agreement between me and you, despite otherwise having nothing to do with F1F93, then I would rather just not address copyvio at all in this agreement. (Please note the if; I would rather our agreement addressed the copyvio problem, but not in this manner.)

7. This is a little weird; you most certainly are not allowed accuse me of logging out to make "controversial" edits, or repeatedly refer to edits that others made that I didn't oppose as "my edits", and there is no difference between me pointing this out and someone else doing so. Additionally, this remark was completely out of line, and if you are not willing to admit that and apologize, then I certainly cannot promise you that I will not call you out for such remarks in the future.

8. Fine.

Also, can I assume that all the "I agree" clauses from my original proposal are null and void, as they are not things you wanted me to agree to in the first place? And on that subject, my original proposal included a lot of unilateral disarmament on my part to appease you, but your proposal seems to have a lot of sticks and not a lot of carrots; this might be my misinterpretation, as per the ambiguity in 1. of what WP:STATUSQUO means (the status quo before a new edit directly made by you or me, or the status quo before a recent edit that has been challenged by you or me), which is why your clarification on these points would be appreciated.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As I tried to articulate at the end of my last comment, I am not interested in those "I agree" clauses where each of us promise to never do something ever again, regardless of what is the right thing to do. For instance, it is not unlikely that I may do something that you consider to be ownership behaviour in the future, so making you promise to never accuse me of ownership again just does not make sense to me. I would rather not make such promises and instead create a framework where we can discuss those concerns in a more mature way than we have done in the past. Here are some more elaborations:

1. This agreement would only apply to the two of us, so as far as I am concerned the status quo would be before either of us touched the content at hand but would not take into account who else had changed it before then. If you are concerned about who did get to it before us, then that would be something we could discuss per clause 2.

2. I can only control my own actions, I'm afraid.

3. If you feel that a discussion is the same as another then that is something we could discuss in private. I think that is preferable to us drumming up old disagreements at an article's talk page, since it distracts everyone from the issue at hand and I think it makes other editors reluctant to get involved.

4. Again, I can't control any other editors.

5. You seem to have misinterpreted this point. This has nothing to do with editing, it is simply asking for us to have a dedicated discussion to clear up the concerns between us regarding OWNership behaviour, so that we both better understand where the other is coming from.

6. If you don't want to make an actual attempt to fix the copyvio problem (and by that I mean start copyediting articles rather than complaining at talk pages), then I expect you to drop the issue completely. I am willing to help you if you do want to do something, but I will not stand around as you harp on about an issue that you care enough about to bring up all the time and use to undermine GA reviews, but not enough that you would actually try to fix it.

7. You know full well that I never accused you of logging out to make controversial edits, and saying things like that is not helping this process one bit. The point of this clause is to stop you from telling me what I can and cannot do, and I will not budge on this. This is one of my biggest issues with you, and if you want this agreement to work then you are just going to have to learn to speak nicely to me. I know that I cannot expect everyone in the real world to be nice to me, but since the whole point of this agreement is to improve our interactions moving forward, improving the way that we talk to each other is only going to help all the other areas.

The general theme of this agreement for me is to (a) get us out of the mainspace and to our private talk pages as soon as possible, so we can hash out concerns maturely and without disrupting other editors, and (b) to improve the way that we speak to each other, so that any discussions we do have can be much more productive than previously. That is why I specifically want to cut down on accusatory rhetoric, unnecessary callbacks to old disagreements, and cruel language. If you think we are on the same page here then please let me know, and I will continue to clarify my points and/or negotiate this agreement with you for as long as you wish.

P.S. As a final point for this comment, I would like to address the discussion below regarding my disagreement with Erik and your response there, specifically this: you need to actually be willing to discuss with the other party, and to accept the clear word of policy on the matter. You are calling me out for not being willing to discuss an issue and acknowledge the other person's perspective, while also stating that policy is on your side (and therefore refusing to acknowledge my side of the story). Please think about this moving forward, because this agreement will not work if you cannot accept that you are not always right. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I wanted to see what you said about 6. If you are going to demand that I do your work for you or keep my gob shut about the problem (i.e., pretend it doesn't exist), then we can't continue discussing this. You can't hold Wikipedia policy hostage like that. I'd rather you got yourself indef-blocked: the only reason I proposed this peace was because I figured those articles were better off under your protection than left to the kind of people who edit those articles when you're not around, but if it's a choice between grossly ungrammatical schlock and close paraphrasing, I must choose the former.

That being said, how about this as an alt: I agree to help fix them in my own time, if you admit that the copyvio exists, promise never to harangue me about it or accuse me of "hounding" over it, and agree not to revert my anti-copyvio edits?

I will look over the rest of your response if/when you either (a) take all talk of me taking responsibility for the copyvio off the table or (b) agree to the above. Sorry, but this is a dealbreaker for me: if I take responsibility for F1F93's copyvio, then I have to take up Rochelimit's as well (don't ask -- it makes sense).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm really trying to be helpful here and you are not making it easy. If we don't make a deal and you continue on as you have been then this "close paraphrasing" problem is going to be something that you complain about forever but never gets addressed. If we include it in this deal, then at least you know that something will be done about it. Do you agree with that train of thought? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with a train of thought that places a burden on me to fix a problem your friend created and you encouraged. As far as I can see, you still have not even acknowledged that it is a real thing (and the scare-quotes around "close paraphrasing" are not helpful). You can accept responsibility for cleaning up the MCU articles that you've spent the last four years preventing me from editing, or you can promise to stop preventing me from editing them, but I will not accept a "peace proposal" that involves me accepting full responsibility for a problem you caused, and you not even promising to stop preventing me from fixing it. I think that if you, TT, and F1F93 agree that the latter's edits, when they include a large amount of text that isn't marked as a direct quotation, frequently contain problematic text that either borders on plagiarism or is blatantly plagiarized, and agree that the GA reviews that failed to pick up on this problem (apparently relying as they did on an automatic tool that doesn't pick up on an entire paragraph of plagiarized text as long as its clauses are shifted around, but will give false positives where external websites plagiarized us) were insufficient, then we will have made a big step toward fixing the problem; the major issue for the last three months has been the "There is no problem!" (and occasionally "Stop saying there's a problem! You're hounding us!") the three of you have been taking.

The sad part is that I actually agree with a lot of your other proposals, but I can't accept them or even discuss them if you are saying they all depend on me compromising on the copyvio issue either by denying that the issue exists or by personally accepting the responsibility of fixing it.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You can be as obstinate as you like, it's not going to change the fact that you are the only person interested in addressing this problem. I have offered to help you sort it out, and you have refused me, which puts you back in the position of having to deal with it on your own. So if you ever decide that you do want my help with it, I will be waiting here. Otherwise, good luck fixing it on your own. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

you are the only person interested in addressing [textual plagiarism] Do you realize what you are saying? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a fact. I didn't say it because I'm trying to antagonize you, I'm just being realistic. No one else has expressed any interest in doing something about this, only you and now me when I offered to help you out. If you can't see that then I don't know how we could ever come to a reasonable agreement. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How about this?

1. You agree not to revert my edits to articles without prior talk page discussion. This applies only to plain reverts, not to edits that address my concerns such as this. As for discussion, at least one uninvolved editor should agree that the edit should be reverted, or the edit should remain intact pending such discussion; otherwise, the article (or the portion of the article relevant to my edit) should return to the status quo as of, say, one month before my initial edit, to allow for the circumstance that my edit was itself a revert and therefore protected under the BRD process.
2. I agree not to interfere if/when you revert any other editor.
3. Assuming adherence to both the above clauses, I agree not to accuse you of WP:OWN, WP:TAGTEAM or WP:EW.
4. You agree not to make any comment to the effect that I am hounding you or othe editors.
5. I agree not to post any more MCU-related articles to WP:GAR or WP:FLRC, for copyvio or any other reason.
6. I agree to withdraw this comment, and to refrain from comment on any future MCU-related GAN, FLC, FTC, etc.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously just going to throw away all of this discussion and start again? Not very mature for a discussion about trying to be more mature. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not going to accept a deal that runs counter to Wikipedia policy just to make you happy; you don't seem to want to talk about the copyvio, so I took those parts of my proposal out—do you have any problems with the new terms? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

These are just the same as your original terms, minus a few, and you simply re-suggesting what you had propsed before this discussion began can only be read as you completely ignoring all the work we have done and effectively stamping your feet because you don't like where the discussion has gone. The whole point of my own proposal at the start of this thread is that I am not interested in the one you already provided, and that hasn't changed. you don't seem to want to talk about the copyvio is not true at all—I directly brought it up as part of my proposal and have been actively discussing it with you all week so I'm not sure what you are on about there. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I already explained that I'm not going to look at the rest of your terms if they all depend on me taking responsibility for cleaning up the copyvio. That's not my responsibility, and you still haven't even explained why peace between me (Hijiri88) and you (Adamstom.97) depends on me cleaning up someone else's (Favre1fan93's) copyright mess: this certainly is not intuitive, and gets weirder the more you refuse to explain your reasoning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained my reasoning: peace between us will not work if this copyvio problem continues. That is why I suggested a realistic solution, something that you have not done. Please try to be constructive. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, then you'll have to fix it. I'm not going to lift a finger to fix it if you're the one insisting that I do so while also threatening to continue reverting every single edit I make to these articles, and I'm certainly not going to agree with your assertion that there are five lights just because you're threatening to continue to harass me indefinitely if I don't; you'd have to change Wikipedia policy for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have never threatened to continue reverting every single edit [you] make to these articles or continue to harass [you] indefinitely, and you know full well that if I made such a false accusation about you that you would immediately be telling me to strike my comment and NEVER DO IT AGAIN! I also do not understand your Star Trek reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You said peace between us will not work if this copyvio problem continues -- I interpret "peace between us" as you no longer harassing me; and when I asked above if you would promise to stop "reverting every single edit I make to these articles" you dodged the question. Anyway, there's no need to shout. I also do not understand your Star Trek reference. Sorry, I noticed you editing several Discovery pages, and figured you'd recognize an allusion to one of the more iconic Next Generation episodes. Picard is shown four lights, and is repeatedly told that there are five, and tortured until he agrees with the counter-factual claim. If I understand it correctly, it is itself a reference to 1984.[4] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you have gone out of your way to interpret my words as a threat there. I never said either of those things. The shouting was sarcastic. And I am a new Star Trek fan and have not got to the Next Generation yet, but from the sounds of your discription I think it is an apt metaphor for how your discussion attempts often come across.

Anyway, I am not threataning anything (unlike you—I'd rather you got yourself indef-blocked very much sounds like you are giving me the options of making peace with you or getting blocked forever), I am just waiting for you to see reason. As I have said before, this discussion is about us working together in a nicer and more productive way. This copyvio issue is not conducive with that, so needs to be sorted out. The rest of my proposal suggests a framework for this improved collaboration, and that is the route I want to take over your proposal of absolutes. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I never said either of those things. "peace between us will not work if this copyvio problem continues" was a direct quote, and your repeated refusal to respond to my requests that you stop reverting all my edits, especially ones that cite copyvio as their rationale, indicates that you do not want to help me clean up the copyvio. I have my suspicions as to why you would want me to agree to clean up the copyvio myself but not be willing to let me do so, but I can't for the life of me think of a good faith reason. That you have reverted every single one of my attempted edits to these articles over the last four years is just a fact; you can talk about me accusing you of "threatening" to continue to do so, but in reality anything short of a promise to stop doing so might as well be a "threat". Say what you want about "improved collaboration" and "absolutes" -- your proposal places the blame on me for a problem that I did not cause, and that you may not have technically caused but you definitely have not helped.[5][6] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A direct quote that you went out of your way to misinterpret. I have not reverted every single one of [your] attempted edits to these articles over the last four years, but I have reverted many of them—the ones that I disagreed with (and generally that most editors who see them have disagreed with). It is because of this that I will never agree to stop reverting your edits, because why would I do that when you have a proven track record of making terrible edits that the wider community is often against? For instance, your "attempts" to clean up the copyvio issue yourself. If you made a genuine effort to fix a visible issue then I would have no problem (and would in fact help you do it, as I have repeatedly offered to do), but instead you have used it to derail discussions and reviews and attack other users. I know you are going to disagree with everything I just wrote, and that is why we need a constructive peace deal that focuses on improving our interactions beyond what they currently are (us two arguing with no hope of coming to consensus) rather than an agreement that will "protect" us from one another which is only going to cause frustration down the line and do nothing to improve this relationship. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

So, you're just going to keep evading the issue and placing the blame for your absolutely unacceptable demands onto me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not evading or demanding anything. All I have done here is try to be friendly and constructive, and it has been met with rudeness and dismissivness at every turn. I don't need this negativity in my life, so you can just take your bad attitude elsewhere. My very reasonable proposal (and my willingness to negotiate it) will be waiting here if you want to do the right thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to negotiate it as well, but first you need to drop the reference to me cleaning up the copyright violation. If you are not willing to drop this highly unreasonable demand, then it is hardly a "very reasonable proposal".

Also, if your proposal is otherwise aimed at preventing edit-warring, then surely it is nearly identical to my one, no? Is the difference that it defines "status quo" differently? My understanding is that, if something was added recently (like the "Ava Russo's secret role" thing) I am entitled to challenge it, and it should stay out of the article pending consensus to the contrary. My terms include a clear definition (whether the text in question was in or out a month earlier); do you disagree with this definition?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no way that ignoring the copyvio issue will be conducive to any peace offering, so it is definitely reasonable to want to address it. The difference between proposals is that you have a list of "bad" things and are demanding that we stop doing them regardless of any context, while I am trying to suggest a framework for improving our interactions so in the future we are free to go where situations need but will hopefully not reach the "bad" parts. That is a massive difference, and I am not at all surprised that you cannot see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I saw your partial reversion of my recent edit to this page, specifically the part about spelling out MCU, and strongly urge you to reconsider it. I landed on the page as a member of the Wikipedia Typo Team. One of my general goals is to make Wikipedia more readable to its target audience – a general readership – and I often go beyond just the typo that brings me to a particular page. I also try to correct the use of jargon, including jargon abbreviations, which makes pages harder to read no matter what the subject. Although it's just my estimate and I have no data, the abbreviation MCU for Marvel Cinematic Universe is unknown to more than 99% of the readership of Wikipedia. Although it's spelled out at the first mention, it is not easy for anybody not familiar with the term to get adjusted to it, like all jargon abbreviations its use makes the article harder to read, and it's unnecessary. A quick trip the MCU disambiguation page shows that it's used for about two dozen other purposes, and anybody with familiarity with those terms, at least some of which are more likely to be used than Marvel, will have even more difficulty substituting for an already familiar term than a random reader. Furthermore, the first use of MCU is quite a few paragraphs after its initial mention, and follows a list and summary of episodes and a list of characters – no general reader should reasonably be expected to remember its meaning by then. If the article had been written by a reporter for, say a newspaper or magazine, no editor would have allowed that sort of jargon to slip through the writing process. Finally, the MCU abbreviation is used only five times in the text, hardly enough to justify its use as a space saver. I even think it should be replaced on all the Marvel pages to make them all more readable.

Although it doesn't break any rules, the use of jargon, whether in wording or abbreviations, is often a problem when people write or edit Wikipedia articles about subjects familiar to them, and I think that's what's happening here. Again, I urge you to reconsider.

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it is as uncommon an abbreviation as you might think, especially to the majority of readers that will be reading that page. I also disagree with the thinking that we should not use abbreviations because the reader might miss or forget the explanation at the start of the article, which I think is a similar problem with just introducing a person once and then only referring to them be surname later (which is an issue found in most writing, not just here, and is something that readers are expected to deal with). However, if you are concerned by its use then I suggest bringing this up at a more centralised talk page; I estimate that the MCU abbreviation is currently used in almost 100 different Wikipedia articles, so I think any change here should be part of a wider discussion and consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Calling somebody by their surname after an initial mention by their full name is not the same as using jargon. If you want the page to appeal to and be read all the way through by the largest audience, then jargon should always be avoided – on all 100 pages if that's needed. Doing so will improve all those pages. But it's whatever you decide – I'm unlikely to come back to these pages unless they have typos or other common grammatical mistakes that are detected by automated checkers.

Regards.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Adam, I've been thinking about broaching this subject myself, but I agree with Ira. Sources that use "MCU" tend to be fan publications, and if we ever get to a point where these films are covered in general paper encyclopedias (which is the type of publication Wikipedia is supposed to be mirroring closeliest on matters like this) it seems highly unlikely that such works would favour the phrase "MCU". (I actually highly doubt such works would refer to the Netflix series, which don't really take place in the same universe as the films, with the primary sources, at least those associated with the Perlmutter faction at Marvel, only saying otherwise for marketing purposes, as taking place in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but that's really a separate issue.) Also worth noting that even if your surname analogy held water in a general sense, it would still need to be introduced once as "Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)" in the article body,[7] which Luke Cage (season 1) doesn't currently do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I usually try to introduce it in full in the article body as well, so if that hasn't been done then I support making that change. But I am still against saying the whole thing in full all the time—it is unnecessary and patronising to readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm with the New Pages Patrol and ended up at the article for the Untitled Picard series. It appears that there is enough information for the article to qualify for Wikipedia mainspace (at least in my opinion), so you were justified in moving it out of the draft area. But be sure to fix the article's title as soon as a true title for the show is announced. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. I couldn't help but notice that my edit on Avengers: Endgame was undone with the summary stating: "Restore standard formatting, capitalization, and small differences that either did not need to be made or should not have (good ol' "energy feedback"), and removing ref from plot summary as we don't need a source for something that is in the film." Please direct me to the Wiki policy that states that strengthening grammar and sentence structure "did not need to be made." Also, counting on not having "a source for something that is in the film" sounds like WP:OR. Do correct me regarding all of these if any points I made were incorrect. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 03:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you coming to my talk page with that attitude. You may believe that everything you did was great, but overall your changes were changing things about for the sake of changing them, or attempting to say them in a less formal way (which is not what we want in an encyclopaedia). It also included wording such as Lang theorizes that the quantum realm allows time travel due to his having only passed five hours as opposed to years and Rhodes returns to the present with the Power Stone without Nebula which don't make a whole lot of sense and are definitely not superior to the version of the summary that was there before. You also reintroduced the term energy feedback which is just silly. As for your claim of OR, if you hadn't noticed the entire plot summary does not have any in-line references to third-party sources, which is the case with pretty much all plot summaries on Wikipedia. This is because we are allowed to describe the plot as is obvious from watching the film (see WP:FILMPLOT for more details on this). It does not make sense to single out this one thing to need a reference unless there was a special circumstance, such as it not being clear from the film. That is not the case here as her name is clearly stated in the film, and even if it was not we generally try to follow a note format to more clearly separate what is from the film and what is being backed up by outside information. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Aside from all of those points, my edit also removed double spaces in sentences as well as added commas where necessary for the sake of grammar. Are you telling me these changes shouldn't stand? Energy feedback is faulty, and I will not re-add it to the page. Please tell me where on WP:FILMPLOT it says citations shouldn't be added to support information that replaces previous inaccurate details (i.e. Valkyrie was referred to as queen even though the citation clearly states she is king). Also, if improving sentence structure and sequencing as well as the content's grammar "don't make a whole lot of sense" then call me guilty. KyleJoan^talk 08:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I actually agree with edits to the plot that you've made, while I still fixed some of the faulty ones for the sake of clarity. I still didn't understand, however, why the Oxford commas that I added and double spaces I removed were reverted with the rest of it. Besides that, I still stand by how it is inaccurate to state that Valkyrie is the queen when the movie itself (which I assume you watched) refers to her as the king, and the source does as well. Cheers. KyleJoan^talk 08:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not notice the king/queen difference at first, so that is my bad. I think that is something we should discuss at the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

A talk page discussion on it would be productive, indeed. KyleJoan^talk 10:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Gifted TV title card.png. 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) 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The article Luke Cage (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Luke Cage (season 1) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What You Really Are. Since you had some involvement with the What You Really Are redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Wakanda Forever Ever cover.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) 02:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I plan on bringing this to the mainspace. I've done a lot, can you please add/remove details in the "Fictional character biography" section? With that, the draft will be ready. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend moving it to the mainspace with a tag such as Template:More plot to encourage others to contribute -- there always seems to be a lot of people out there willing to expand on these sorts of sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What to retitle this as now? Because, apparent from Feige and Holland's recent comments at D23, Spidey will no longer be in the MCU. Holland said he'd continue playing Spider-Man, but that implies a reboot as part of Sony's Marvel Universe. Is Draft:Untitled Spider-Man reboot film apt? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It is still intended to be a sequel to Far From Home, which is a Sony film. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Although Sony Pictures chairman and CEO Tony Vinciquerra implies otherwise. Please see what you can do. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Adam. Do you know if Star Trek: Discovery (season 3) started filming in July, per Draft:Star Trek: Discovery (season 3)? If it did, should we move it to the mainspace? Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen a good source to confirm it yet, and I am not up-to-date with the Star Trek articles right now, but I'll keep an eye out. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Turns out there were plenty of good sources! I've updated the draft and made the move now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) 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 1) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kingsif -- Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how you add or edit references, but I use this gadget which is the greatest ref-editing/adding gadget ever made. It even has the "normalise" button, which converts the styling of all refs used in the body of the article. So please don't undo ref-styling edits I make with ProveIt, like you did here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The whole time I have been editing Wikipedia, references have always basically looked the same, it is only recently that you have started changing them to this new style (in my experience). And it is standard to always retain existing styling in an article since styling is subjective and edit warring over it is nonsensical. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey Adam, thanks for your work on the Captain Marvel article. Just a minor quibble though regarding this edit, I do believe this is the exact moment Larson was announced/introduced in the role. Feige made the announcement at Comic-Con and she walked on stage.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that is correct, but we can't see that in the photo so I just feel like it may be confusing to someone who doesn't know that. It's not a biggie if you think it is fine and more accurate the other way. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. The current caption is fine. I was just trying to find a way to more directly tie the caption to the image.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

How’s this? “Brie Larson at the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con, where she was announced in the role of Captain Marvel” or “Brie Larson at the 2016 San Diego Comic-Con after being announced in the role of Captain Marvel” —TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Either of those would work for me. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, as you can see from my contributions I'm not as involved with entertainment-related articles as you are. I'm also not as well-versed in the MCU, so when I read that paragraph I thought the Inhumans film had already been produced since the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode came out in 2014. Is there anything you can add to that paragraph to make it more clear that the movie was never produced? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a note that the film was taken off Marvel's schedule, we have a source for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that works! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but do you have a good understanding of this? Because I intend to take Mouna Ragam to FAC, but before that I want the overbloated popular culture section reduced, though I can't identify what to remove/reduce. I don't mind removing chunks of content, so long as the section becomes something like this. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to not try and have quotes from everyone that has spoken on it, just mention people discussing it and its influnce on popular culture with maybe one or two really good quotes. That way you will find the content that really helps add to the discussion rather than just listing opinions. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Venom (2018 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Venom (2018 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Venom (2018 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Captain Marvel (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The article Captain Marvel (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Captain Marvel (film) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Venom (2018 film) (estimated annual readership: 5,150,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wow, you've done a lot of work on film and TV articles! Some of these tend to have high readership; would you like me to check some of the other GAs listed on your user page? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this, this is very cool. I'm not too worried about you going back through my old GAs or anything, and a lot of them were a big collaboration. But this one I did a lot of work on my own for so it is great to get this recognition! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The article Captain Marvel (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Captain Marvel (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spider-Man: Far From Home you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The article Spider-Man: Far From Home you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freeknowledgecreator -- Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, El Millo (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 02:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.

But seriously, happy holidays. DarkKnight2149 22:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, El Millo (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year!

Hello Adamstom.97:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.