User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Adding some stuff on Jessica Jones

Hey. Wikipedia is freaking out for me when I try to copy/paste large amounts of text on to this article for some reason. Anyways, there's a good amount of new stuff from the costume designer, here. If you can get the chance to add it, that would be great. (I felt starting pulling info/quotes from when she talks about Trish's "uniform" after the first picture was what I was going to do.) Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had that problem occasionally recently. No worries, I've added some stuff from the article now. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! I seem to think it might be tied to the article size, like the servers can't process all the content or something. Because smaller size articles are fine for me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Just so you know (Jessica Jones)

You have no reason to edit Jessica Jones (TV series)#Other media. Here's a source confirming she's a part of that game - http://marvel.com/news/video_games/25479/go_inside_avengers_alliance_spec_op_31

But you didn't add that source with your edit. Everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced, and it isn't up to others to find and add sources for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)So everyone is clear, this is not the TV show character. It's just Jessica Jones. This info is appropriate at Jessica Jones#Video games but not the television article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Strange (film)

I've started a discussion on the film's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vixen (web series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central City. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Couple of things

1. Thanks for creating the season split. Hoping you would since I couldn't be on to do it myself. However, I was thinking. Possibly in the future, it we have such a fleshed out article as we did, it may be better to move it to the season article, and then recreate the main article from scratch. Just food for thought.
2. I think we can still move move development content over to the season 1 article from the main article.
3. Do you think we should start a The Punisher draft? Despite the THR source you added, I don't believe it is much more "confirmed" then when TVLine broke the news

I won't be on much the next couple of days, so just wanted to run this all by you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The split was actually a bit of a mess all round, as I was kind of in the middle of something else that was quite important, plus there was the old copy and paste issue as well. What I did was copy the Daredevil season 1 page over to the new JJ season 1 page, since I thought it was a good template, then I just replaced the DD stuff with all the important things from JJ, etc. We generally end up doing these things differently each time, but we always end up right in the end, just might need a bit of tweaking. I am happy to add more development stuff to the season article, I just grabbed what I thought was needed.

The way I see the Punisher stuff, we had a report that they were thinking about it, confirmation that they were thinking about, and then a report that they were looking for a showrunner to help them think about it. It's probably not much less info than we have in the new JJ season 2 draft though, so I'm fine to make a Punisher draft or to just leave it for a while. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Just wanted to run that idea past you. I'm also getting some info from IGN as I type, so I may just crudely add things here and there for the time being (by all means flesh it out if you'd like, not asking you to though). As for Punisher, I'd say lets wait a bit. We have all our info where it needs to be, and I have The Punisher (TV series) redirecting to Daredevil, so I think we'll be okay until we have a better sense of what's happening with it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

With Loeb coming out and kind of confirming early development on Punisher, I whipped up a bit of an article in my sandbox just to see what a Draft would be like at this stage. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like enough to create a draft, so I say we do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ratings tables

Hello, what's the reason for the ratings tables on articles such as Agent Carter (season 1), Agent Carter (season 2), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) and List of Gotham episodes having set widths of 99% rather than 100%? Thank you — Artmanha 09:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Back when we first started making those tables (and others, I'm pretty sure most if not all of our tables are 99% wide, not just the ratings tables) an issue was raised with the mobile version of Wikipedia. Apparently the 100% wide tables' formatting got screwed up in the translation from the desktop site to the mobile one. I'm not sure if that is still the case, but that was our reasoning at the time anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Was there a discussion regarding the matter? — Artmanha 10:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was, but I haven't been able to find it any of the archives so far. I'm not sure what page we discussed it at or anything, but you may be able to find it if you have a look around. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help! — Artmanha 10:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Bolger on Marvel's Agent Carter

You reverted my editing that would add her name to the recurring characters list, with the motivation "this is intentional, we're not sure if she is recurring yet". How can we not be sure? She already recurred, and her character is the long-term fiancée of a regular, not a one-time character. Even if her storyline were to be ended in her next appearance, that would make it 3 episodes out of 10, which is recurring status all right. Kumagoro-42 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Consensus for MCU television series is recurring is defined as 4 or more appearances. (3 appearances is not a hard "they're recurring now!") Recurring is a very loose term, which can be anywhere from 2-4 appearances depending on they type of series and other circumstances being considered, such as the notability of those appearances. As such, regular working editors of these articles have determined that 4 appearances is a good basis to consider if someone is recurring. That is why your edit was reverted, because she is scheduled for 3 episode appearances at the moment. Should she appear in any of the remaining episodes of the season, she will be added as recurring. Until then, her info is located at List of Agent Carter characters#Introduced in season 2. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Favre is right. With something like this in which it is really a matter of perspective and opinion, we had to come up with some guidelines to avoid any arguments over whose opinion is right. So for any guest actors that we don't have reliably sourced as being recurring, we only promote them to recurring once they have appeared (or been confirmed to be appearing) in at least four episodes. At the moment, Bolger has had a guest role in the two-part premiere, and is confirmed to appear in at least one more episode of the season, so I don't htink it is unreasonable to wait for at least another episode appearance confirmation before promoting her. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Teen Wolf (season 1)

Could you help me by checking the messages I left of Teen Wolf season 1 talk page and giving me your opinion? Thank you so much — Artmanha 01:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. revert

Adamstom, I know that you think you're the king (or co-king) of comic book TV/movie articles or something, but you really should be following the dos and don'ts of reverting. "Avoid reverting edits [by established editors] other than vandalism most of the time." "Don't revert an edit because [you think] it is unnecessary ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. WP does not have a bias toward the status quo." Don't completely revert, while asking a question in the edit summary. Ask the (veteran) editor on his talk page before reverting. And finally, "It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to [totally] revert the prior edit." This shows an effort to work with other editors – while the alternative is disruptive and can cause disdain.

Now, for my reasons for my edit. Yes, the edit was according to (if not MOS) the general standards on the majority of awards tables on WP. First, I changed 2 column headings. It should be "Association", not "Award". People's Choice Awards (for example) is the association, not an award, and "Award" is obviously redundant. And it's "Nominee", not "Recipient". A recipient is the one who wins, but they are all nominees, whether they won or not. Second, I removed repeated links from the Association and Nominee columns, and added accurate links. Now for the non-notable content: First, I didn't know what the heck you were talking about when you said, "has already been found notable for the season 3 page". So, I go there and see that it has the exact same thing there. That in itself doesn't make sense - to have awards on the series page and the season page is just unnecessarily redundant (one or the other - not both). I'd never seen any season article like that. Anyway, I went to the article for TVLine (which I'd not heard of before) and see that it's a stub, and not only does it not give the winners of the award, it doesn't even mention any awards at all. That's enough right there, but then I go to the website and see that it's a WordPress blog, which is considered not reliable. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am not at all impressed with this hostile and arrogant display. Just because you are a "veteran" editor doesn't mean you are better than anyone else, though I would expect better than throwing out ridiculous accusations at the beginning of a discussion, which is immature and unhelpful. Though it would obviously be nice if everyone could hold hands and be nice to each other, I'm afraid that I am not going to start following the suggestions of a well meaning but naive essay just because you think I should. "Avoid reverting edits [by established editors] other than vandalism most of the time" is a ridiculous statement. Many editors, no matter how experienced, make mistakes or are misguided, etc. and it doesn't make sense to leave such edits just because they don't want me to revert them. "Don't revert an edit because [you think] it is unnecessary ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. WP does not have a bias toward the status quo." Well, in my opinion the edit did make the article worse, and will explain why below. "Don't completely revert, while asking a question in the edit summary. Ask the (veteran) editor on his talk page before reverting." If I felt that a discussion was required, that I had some qualms about the edit or such, then I would have gone down this route, but it didn't. You made a bold edit that worsened the page and gave a very vague explanation as to why. I reverted it, as is my right as an editor, and pointed out both how vague you were and some other reasons as to why it shouldn't have been made. Perhaps you should have asked the community of regular editors here why the table was like it is, or checked some of the other related articles (where you would have seen that we use the same or a similar format on multiple pages and so would likely want to discuss any changes to that format. ""It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to [totally] revert the prior edit." This shows an effort to work with other editors – while the alternative is disruptive and can cause disdain." Ummm...are you seriously saying that I should leave parts of incorrect edits just so the editors feel good about themselves? I'm afraid the articles and their quality always come first.

I don't have a problem with the change to "Association" and "Nominee". I was a bit busy at the moment, and I think I was on my phone which is not really ideal for editing, so I just reverted with the intention of explaining this if you inquired further and at some point going around and changing this on our other pages as well. As for the repeated links, WP:REPEATLINK excuses tables, and we decided that it would be beneficial for readers if we linked every instance (except for the current page, of course), so that is why all the actors are linked, etc. Also, you removed the exact links to the individual award shows, and replaced them with multiple links to the same page in the category column, which is not preferable. We should only be linking the categories if they have their own article already (and that helps a bit with showing relative notability of each award/category). The reason some awards appear in both the season 3 page and the series article is because the series article is basically just a summary article, with the specifics all at the individual season articles. That means that we repeat some stuff at the series article that we already have at the season articles, but for the most part that isn't really a problem. So yes there is a wee bit of redundancy there, but the fact is that the awards at the season articles are also applicable to the overall series, as well as being something logical to summarise on the series page. And just because you have "never seen any season article like that" doesn't make it a bad thing. In fact, our series article and first two season articles for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. are all WP:Good articles. AS for TVLine, the Wikipedia article has no bearing on its notability or reliability. That just means that an editor hasn't taken the time to expand the page yet. But if you went to the website itself and found it to be non-notable or non-reliable, then I suggest you go to Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) and raise your concerns there. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure TVLine is a sister site or something of Deadline and Variety, which indicates reliability to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"hostile"? "arrogant"?! Frankly, I thought of a lot of other things I could have said, but I waited and calmed down, so I could make constructive comments. Did you read WP:ROWN? Everything I put in quotes was taken from there. Those are not just my opinions. It seems that you are the one who is "arrogant" and "naive", to think that you know better than a guideline written down for years, for all editors to follow. WP is supposed to be a collaborative effort, where editors work together as best they can, not to revert because it's convenient. Total reversion should be the last resort. And I never said a veteran editor is better than anyone else. I used the word veteran (in parentheses) to mean that a veteran editor (which you are one) wouldn't likely ask a newbie or an IP a question like that. But it is a good idea to ask a much more experienced editor a question. I could rebut everything you said in the second paragraph, but I know that it would be a waste of my time – just like my edit was a waste of time. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Carter guest cast

Since we now have all releases, my sandbox has been updated, if you want to take a look and see if we should put anyone in the guest section of the LoC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Agents Ford, Ryan, and Blackwell and Dr Chung could all be added to the section, and just removed if they turn out to be background roles (like Lavallee's officer/agent did—I don't even remember noticing him). The single episode guests would depend on the notability of their actual appearances. I am also inclined to add Angela Cristantello's receptionist even though she doesn't even have a name, as she appeared a couple times and, at least to me, is a memorable guest character. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree on all the two-episode characters outside of Lavallee, as well as Cristantello. The only other 1 ep guest so far I'd add would be John Balma as Torrence, the Arena Club manager who has to deal with Stark when he bring all the ladies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool

It's not restoring a few things if you undo everything. The lead reads terribly, they don't all have the follow a single format, it's about what is organic and best for the article, there is no need for an album infobox and likst most articles it would be required to be removed at an FA stage at a minimum, most likely along with the album listing, the filming image bleeds into the following section and you turned the US box office stuff into a big block of text again. There was no need to undo those changes at all and now reason given. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

If you see, I have readded a lot of the changes, I was just unable to do it all straight away because of Wikipedia's problem with copying and pasting in larger articles. And I disagree that the lead, at least my version (which is different from both your one and the one from before your edit), "reads terribly", and I did not follow any format when rewriting it either. I also disagree that there is no need for an album infobox. The reason most film articles don't have one is because the soundtrack information usually has its own page. When one such page is made for Deadpool, the album infobox and track listing will be moved over there. And I moved the image so that we didn't have to add the clear in there which made a large, unnecessary section of whitespace. I'm not sure of the box office stuff, but I have left it how it was after your edits, so I don't see what your problem with me over it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Interview request

Hey, sorry this has taken so long. Here's a link to the interview questions if you still want to fill 'em out. I really appreciate it!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: Sorry, now I am the one that has taken a long time. Here are my answers to your questions, hopefully they are helpful to you :)

• 1) When did you start editing Wikipedia and why?

I believe that I stumbled upon the idea of editing Wikipedia when I was quite young. I was interested in History and English, and taking those as subjects at school, so the idea of researching and collecting information and writing it all up, etc., appealed to me. I am also interested in computers and have gone into Computer Science / programming, so those aspects of Wikipedia also appealed to me. However, for whatever reason, I didn't quite get into Wikipedia then. It was a bit later, in September 2011, that I really became a regular editor. My inner nerd was blossoming at that time, so to speak, and I quickly began to create and edit articles on topics that interested me, combining them with my History and Computer interests.

• 2) Does Wikipedia play a big part in your life/identity?

By now, Wikipedia plays a big part in my personal life. I constantly keep watch over the articles in my watchlist and consistenyl expand or create articles based on topics of great interest to me. It is a major distraction, and takes up a lot of my personal time, but I enjoy it very much and continue to work around the rest of my life so as to keep as active on Wikipedia as I do.

• 3) What initially drew you to the articles that you edit?

As I said, "my inner nerd was blossoming" and I was discovering such things as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which I now follow near obsessively. As my experiences with popular culture expand, as do the different articles that I visit and help out at, but ultimately my focus has always been on the MCU articles, which are specifically very important to me.

• 4) Why do you feel the desire to collect disparate info and then collect it into one (or more) article?

Like I said above, it is to do with my interest in History and English. It is a way of using those interests and tying them with my nerdy hobbies.

• 5) What does the term ‘canon’ mean to you?

Canon is what "actually happens" in a fictional world. Sometimes there are contradictions in canon due to real world issues, and that is unfortunate, but we just have to deal with that.

• 6) When you’re making an article, is it important to ‘stick to canon’, or use only legitimate, canonical sources?

It is important to me that we always stick to canon, but I recognise that Wikipedia is less worried with canon and more with real world issues. Because of this, I strive to find reliable sources and real world-relevant ways of dealing with things, to ensure that we "stick to canon", but do so in a suitable for Wikipedia way.

• 7) In your opinion, what determines canon (or, “who has the final say”)?

I think canon is determined by the creators / producers of the content, even if we don't always like that. I am generally happy to enjoy something that isn't technically canon, but I'm know there are plenty of people who get quite angry when something they like is made non-canon or retconned in some way.

• 8) Do some editors of pop culture articles guard their articles, (or “prevent the canon from being tainted”)?

I definitely think regular editors guard their articles. I myself am very protective of the MCU articles, which has lead to several accusations of myself thinking I WP:OWN them. However, it is my experience that regular editors are very good at following Wikipedia regulartions first and foremost, and it is actually more part-time or IP editors who are super focused on canon and try to "prevent the canon from being tainted". For me, protecting those pages sometimes means reverting edits that added un-Wikipedia like fanboyish canon stuff, and in those cases I do my best to readd the material in a different way, that is appropriate for Wikipedia.

• 9) If there’s an edit war and you want to get involved, generally, how do you determine what side to choose?

If I wish to get involved, I will usually have an opinion on the situation, and whether that is one of the positions already being used in the edit war or not, I am happy to express mine. So either there will be a "side" that aligns with my own thinking and I will just join them, or I will create my own "side".

• 10) In your opinion, do certain Wikipedia editors have more power than others? If yes, how so?

Yes, I think that more experienced, regular editors have more power than newer or less frequent ones, and rightly so. Often newer or less committed editors do not understand Wikipedia guidelines, or do not want to, and until they do, it is up to us to uphold the quality of Wikipedia. I don't think that any editor is more important than any other, I just think that to trust our community we need new editors to prove they are on the same page as Wikipedia's guidelines before they join said community.

• 11) How do you gain the trust of other editors?

By being respectful and helpful and following guidelines etc., but mostly by demonstrating that you can work well within the community and not be disruptive.

• 12) How does an editor gain expertise/become an “expert” in a specific subject?

I don't think we ever really determine that. We do look to experienced editors as in those who have been doing it for a long time and have shown to know what they are doing. But I don't think we ever look at someone as an expert in a specific subject. Perhaps this is more of an issue in areas such as science, where I wouldn't be suprised if people edited based on their own understanding of the subject, etc. But for all the entertainment stuff I edit, it is definitely more about finding information than anyone's thoughts or opinions, and it is the editors who do that really well, and consistently, that I guess become experts.

- adamstom97 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your responses! They are very helpful!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars sequel trilogy

You keep re-adding your changes, mentioning a "release" in the edit summary. What release? I don't see a ref dated for today. Why don't you add it with your edit? - ^theWOLFchild 04:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it had been added. I've added it now, with this edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have already removed Ram Bergman Productions from the infobox section of the Star Wars Episode VIII page this morning. There's no need to add the Plainlist template anymore. AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode VII

At Star Wars sequel trilogy, you said: "PLEASE DO NOT ADD "EPISODE VII" HERE, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS ARTICLE". According to who? - ^theWOLFchild 23:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is an alternate title that we mention briefly in the Force Awakens article. It doesn't make sense to then add 'also known as Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens' everywhere else we mention the proper name. Another example would be The Avengers, which was also known as Avengers Assemble in the UK. Again, we briefly mention the alternate title in the actual film article itself, but where we mention The Avengers elsewhere, such as at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, we only use the proper title, because the alternate one just isn't notable enough beyond its brief mention. Now, if it was decided that mentioning the Episode VII title is notable enough at the sequel trilogy page due to consistency with the other titles, then that would probably be fine, but I think it is too early to even have that discussion since we don't even know what 8 and 9 are going to be called, let alone if they are going to follow the same format as Episode VII. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

So, the short answer is "according to you". Got it. Couple of things though... it's not being added "everywhere we mention the proper name", just here. And it makes "sense" to do so here because other editors have repeatedly edited the additional "Episode VII" to the table entry. You say "It is an alternate title that we mention briefly in the Force Awakens article". Well, yeah, but.. in the opening sentence. Of the lead. In bold. And it's there because the community decided it should be there. The community spoke then by way of RfC and they're speaking again here by way repeated edits. It does absolutely no harm to the article to have the alternate title added where is was. It's simply a matter of clarification, which makes it an improvement. Now... how do we weigh all that against your personal taste? - ^theWOLFchild 23:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Being a dick is in no way helping this situation. I gave a valid explanation that was clearly not 'because I want it to be this way', and I even noted that if a discussion is had under certain circumstances and this consensus is reached, then it can be readded later. But you are confusing community consensus (the RfC, which was about that brief inclusion at that article, and nothing else) with people vandalising the page. Editors consistently adding the same thing is not 'the community speaking', it is vandalism, and that is why we add notes to try and prevent people from adding stuff that they shouldn't. The fact is, there is no consensus to add this here, and it doesn't make sense to either. And just because I am the one that has given the logical reasoning, doesn't mean that this is my "personal taste". So stop giving undue weight because you want to, and please try and refrain from unnecessary hostility in future. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Being a dick is in no way helping this situation" - You're right, you should stop being one. Not every instance of people adding "Episode VII" to that table entry is vandalism. If you really think that, then you should give WP:VANDAL a read sometime. Many people come here, see something they believe needs to be changed and they do so, with every intent of improving the article. We tell people to do this... it's called WP:BOLD. You seem to think that calling everyone who disagrees with you a "vandal" (or a "dick") justifies your edits and your crappy attitude... it doesn't. What the RfC, and therefore the community, said was that "Episode VII" needs to be somehow linked to the film's title, if it is not to be included in the actual page title. Many of us felt that would help avoid some confusion and the constant editing that occurring at the TS:TFA article to include "Episode VII". We added it as an "aka" note in the lead and it solved the problem. I see a similar problem here and I am simply applying the solution that worked there. Like I said, it's an improvement. You still have yet to say anything that would convince people that your removal of the edit was anything other than your personal preference. So tell me, how does removing it improve the article? - ^theWOLFchild 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you need to have a read over this conversation to get a better idea of who has a "crappy attitude", because out of nowhere I got unnecessarily sarcastic comments like "According to who?", "So, the short answer is "according to you". Got it.", and "Now... how do we weigh all that against your personal taste?" while I was trying to explain myself seriously and with logic and reason.

Secondly, this article has been consistently vandalised to the point where it was protected from vandalism, and one of the many things that was happening a lot was the addition of the Episode VII title, even though it was removed time and again to conform Wikipedia's policies. It may not technically by WP:VANDALism, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem, which we generally at least try to solve with notes.

Thirdly, I too was a part of the RfC over at the Force Awakens talk page, and I can tell you that the consensus was "to include "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" as an alternate title in the lede of the article." That is it. And you deciding to come up with "what the RfC, and therefore the community, said was that "Episode VII" needs to be somehow linked to the film's title, if it is not to be included in the actual page title" because that's what you want to think even though it isn't what actually happened, is wrong. You don't get to stretch the truth to fit your opinion (or "personal taste"), and you don't have the right to be rude to somebody when they point that out to you. I am following the consensus of the RfC as well as WP:UNDUE, whereas you are just doing whatever the hell you want. So don't come to my talk page and throw accusations and be a "dick" to me because you didn't get your way. Instead, try a be a positive member of this community and follow the rules—why don't you start a discussion on the sequel trilogy talk page saying how you think the results of the RfC should be reflected on that article? Like I said, I think it is too early (not to mention a breach of WP:UNDUE), but perhaps that won't be the consensus, and you will get the outcome that you want, the right way. If that doesn't sound like a good idea to you, or you would rather continue harassing me and wasting my time, then perhaps Wikipedia, a place where everybody has to be able to work together, is not the right place for you. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Omigawd, you sound like you're actually crying. (Real tears!) Look, you can't seem to see the edit as an improvement, even based on your own remarks here. You can't, or won't, explain how it is not an improvement. You think complaining about me and repeatedly citing UNDUE somehow magically covers everything when maybe you should be reading WP:OWN. I really can't be bothered with all this drama. This is now more trouble than it's worth. Congrats. - ^theWOLFchild 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Table format

Just curious why the 9.8%? The total percentage only equals 90.4%. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha that was some poor counting on my part :) You're right, the 11% was correct in the first place. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

There is a dispute at Talk:Spider-Man and the X-Men over whether a redlink editor's edits violate WikiProject Comics guidelines as fancruft and issue-by-issue synopses. A comparison of two versions is here. I am writing to some longtime Project editors individually, since Portal talk:Comics appears to have very little traffic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice board has had no postings in years. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Colossus - Motion Capture, & Giving Reasons

@Adamstom.97:

Like it or not, but deleting large amounts of information without reason is vandalism.

If you have some reason to believe that having a note attached listing the actors who provided motion-capture work for Colossus is irrelevant, then you have to list you reasons why.

You are not above other people, and must provide reason before you provide action.

Bring this discussion about whether Colossus's motion-capture actors should be mentioned to the talk page, like any normal Wikipedia user should.

You appear to be the only one on the page removing tons of information without providing reason.

Stefan Kapičić^V

86.46.234.92 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)OK86.46.234.92 (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, I have already explained why I am removing this. Just because other users are being disruptive by continuing to add it without explaining themselves doesn't mean I should have to keep explaining myself or put up with this nonsense. A big problem is that users such as yourself keep adding these people to the cast table while there are at least three separate discussions about said table on the talk page! That is so against Wikipedia policy it is ridiculous. It is users like you that should be told "you are not above other people".

As for Colossus, those other actors were not credited and so aren't that notable for that franchise overview table. They definitely should be mentioned at the Deadpool page as part of the development of the character in the film, but not in a table such as this. If you disagree, I suggest you start a(nother) discussion over at the appropriate talk page so that everyone can talk about it there. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agent Carter (season 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Double Negative. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool

Why did you change my wording for the production section of The Deadpool article? I was trying to make the article have less WP:Proseline in it and make it easier to read. To my knowledge I didn't take any info out. --Deathawk (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid splitting the paragraph into unnecessarily smaller ones, with added content such as the very unencyclopaedic lead-in sentecne "Plans for a movie based on the Deadpool comic extend at least as far back as 2000" threw up some major red flags as I was checking to see what damage had been done over night (the Deadpool article has had a lot of poor editing bordering on vandalism, unfortunately). I understand wanting to reduce proseline, it has been a particular struggle for us in these film development sections which have to both tell the systematic development of the project while ideally not coming across as a timeline, and I think that I did a reasonable job when I rewrote the section recently. You are right that that first paragraph still has a lot of dates in it though, and I am afraid we really just have to deal with that due to the nature of the information, which is really stretched out across years. I'm not saying that my way is perfect or anything, I just don't think that mixing up the section like that trying to hide all the dates is helping with its readability much. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm I can see your concern with the first line, what if I changed it to "Plans for a movie based on the Deadpool comic extend back to 2000" That way we reduce any uncertainty that the phrase "as far back as" causes. I just want to avoid the repetition really. We have two sentences starting with "In (X-Date)" and to me that looks somewhat less than proffesional. I'm just trying to mix it up a little bit. --Deathawk (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Star Wars sequel trilogy: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned.
Note; This is not a warning or anything negative, it is just a friendly, helpful tip. The more vandals that are warned, the more they are identified and the easier they are to block, which helps reduce disruptive editing. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Daredevil s2

Just wanted you to know that I'm probably going to avoid the related articles for the season for a bit. I known I'm not going to have a bunch of time over the next week or so to give a day to binge this, so it's going to be spread out. When I do watch, I'm going to take good notes for cast members/actors, and crew so we can properly update. Enjoy when you can watch the season. See you on the other side! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping to get through it over the weekend, but I don't know when I'll get back involved here, depends on the state of the articles afterwards. Sorting out the cast as you go will definitely help, enjoy! - adamstom97 (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

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

Bouncing Back

added links pointing to Inhuman and William Sadler

Parting Shot

added a link pointing to William Sadler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Going for featured list?

I'm seeing your edits over at the AoS character list. Trying to get it cleaned up for a potential nom? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reckon that of all our character lists, this would be the one to start with. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I'll see if I can help, but I'm still trying to focus on the LoTV series article that failed originally and seeing if I can get that nominated and passed again, so it might not be much. Maybe more of a "polish" after you've gone through with your changes if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST

Contrary to your assertion here WP:TVCAST is not just about new members joining later in the series, it is about how we credit cast in all positions - It was discussed in October-December last year at MOS:TV when we decided not to include episode counts and discussed how we should credit recurring and guest roles. TVCAST says "The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits". Note that it specifically refers to "broadcast credits", i.e. the credits that appear in an episode. For Daredevil (TV series), "series original broadcast credits" were Charlie Cox, Deborah Ann Woll, Elden Henson, Toby Leonard Moore, Bob Gunton and Vincent D'Onofrio, in that order. Even if your assertion was correct, which it is not, Bob Gunton and Vincent D'Onofrio should not have been moved out of sequence as they were credited in the first episode. "With new cast members being added to the end of the list" refers to how we add cast to the list. It doesn't matter if they've been recurring in a series since the first episode, if they were added to the list of stars after the first episode, they are added to the bottom of the list, and cast added to the starring list after that are added underneath them. For example, Rosario Dawson was first credited in episode 2, so she is added after D'Onofrio, who was credited last in episode 1. The next person to be added to the credits was Vondie Curtis-Hall, in episode 3, so he is added after Dawson. The broadcast credit order is central to how we list cast. That is how WP:TVCAST works and it has wide consensus. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

MCU-related

Hi. I have noticed that you have reverted some of the edits done in the shows that are set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe like reverting some bios and causes of deaths in Daredevil and Jessica Jones. When it comes to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., where does it say in the Watchdogs in their debut episode were also terrorists when it mentioned that they were Inhuman hunters? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As per usual, I welcome your edits and those of others, as we always can use new eyes and new interpretations, but I will continue to revert or partially revert any edit that I see as decreasing the quality of an article. As for the Watchdogs, I can't remember if they are ever called terrorists in the episode, but I do know that that is what they are. We don't need an episode to tell us that a dog is a dog for us to call it a dog, and so we don't need an episode to tell us that a terrorist is a terrorist for us to call it a terrorist. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If you'd like, you can re-add the information that you removed in a way that would improve the article. Especially the death info that was removed to detail how a character was killed off. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correction

Thanks for your correction on Captain America: Civil War.I don't know what happened to my browser and it start deleting text and I also can't able to reverse it.Thanks again for correcting it. Imnaiyar —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, it definitely came across as a mistake. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your work today corralling the flurry of news across the MCU films and television series, and for your continued work for these article as we hit a critical mass soon of things entering and exiting production and/or releasing left and right. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, it can become a bit of a mess when we get these days, but it is great to get so much news - adamstom97 (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ultimo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

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

List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters

added links pointing to John Hannah and The Devil Wears Prada

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

added a link pointing to Inhuman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Kindly cease screwing with what I put into those articles; what I wrote is the correct, SPECIFIC information on what stories those films were based on, rather than the vague character credits previously given. Half of the articles I edited didn't even list the films' source stories in the opening paragraph! I suggest you reply to me before going off on another wild reverting spree. Stolengood (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Kindly cease screwing with the accuracy of those articles; the infoboxes are supposed to reflect the films' credits, which is how we have had them until you decided that you knew better! I suggest you start a discussion in an appropriate place next time, before you go on another wild vandalism spree. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to reply to me before you started reverting. The boxes are supposed to reflect who wrote what, and what a film was based on; sometimes, it lists a writer uncredited on the film; sometimes it lists a story source unmentioned in the credits. I was doing that here. That's the whole point. (I'm sorry for my abrasiveness, but I'm really tired right now. I know you're a giant Marvel fan and seeming "custodian" of the pages, but kindly inquire with an editor before you start reverting things nilly-willy, please. Thanks.) I'm going to re-revert your edits after I've gotten some shuteye; please don't touch them then until we've worked this out. We'll all be much calmer, that way. Stolengood (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am also quite tired, and I'm happy to discuss this through with you if you want. The infoboxes are supposed to reflect the official credits. For instance, Edward Norton did some well documented work on the script for The Incredible Hulk, but he wasn't officially credited for that in the film, so we can't list him in the infobox for that film's article. So yes, it is clear that the Iron Man films borrow a lot from Extremis, again for example, but they just credit the character and his original creators in the film's credits, so that is who we credit in the infobox. That is why I reverted you the first time.

When you then reverted me, you broke WP:BRD, which is a good system to follow on Wikipedia when you are interacting with the community. Basically, if you make a bold edit like you have done here, and someone reverts you, then the best next step is to discuss it, not re-reverting. So if you do revert me again before discussing, I'm afraid that will be undone, even if not by me. And if you still disagree that the infobox should be as we have it at that point, then I would suggest starting a discussion at the appropriate article's talk pages, so that everyone can sort out what needs to happen together. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The Singularity

Hello. I see you have put a great deal of work into The Singularity, a TV episode. I am aware that it is extremely common for TV episodes to be in Wikipedia. That is ok with me. However, would you point me to where there is mention that it is ok? If it is not ok, it would be sensible to try to massively delete hundreds or thousands of episode articles. This would be a lot of wasted effort in writing but it would be the right thing to do if there is no rationale to have these articles.

I do not seek to delete these unless there was an error in following the rules. I am merely curious to where it says it's ok to have these TV episodes and possibly to learn the history of how Wikipedia came about to having these.

Keep up the good work! Whiskeymouth (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A secondary reason is because I seek to write some TV episode articles and am currently followed around by troublemakers and disruptive users who will probably seek to delete my hard work. That is why I want to establish if these type of articles are legal in Wikipedia before beginning work. Whiskeymouth (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Anybody can make an article about anything, as long as the subject is notable enough, so episode articles are fine in and of themselves. I have proven previously that articles for this series are very noteworthy and reliable, particularly because of its relatively high profile nature. As you will see if you look through these articles, many have additional behind the scenes information, all well written and reliably sourced, while the best have comprehensive critical response sections. The community here has agreed that it is best to make these so that anyone can help improve them, as we are confident that any of them which are not up to scratch will be eventually (and we are in WP:NORUSH). You should note that just because an article appears to be non-notable doesn't necessarily mean that it is, it just means that somebody hasn't proven the notability yet.

I suggest that if you come across an article like this which you believe isn't notable enough to exist (generally these have a whole lot of plot and not much else of substance) then you should tag it for deletion. If the author(s) disagree then they can contest the deletion, and who knows, the result may be them providing some good, sourced information that leaves the article improved rather than deleted. Doing this a few times may also give you a better idea of what is and isn't notable. As for creating them yourself, go for it! As long as you have some good, sourced information and aren't just making one because you are a fan of the show and want the article to exist, then you should have a good argument against any of those "troublemakers" who oppose you. When you do look to make some episode articles, you should also think first about whether every epidode truly deserves it or wether there are just one or two that are notable enough. For instance, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has reviews and behind-the-scenes interviews and the like every week, but Daredevil, which I also do a lot of work on, is all released at once and so most of the information we have is about each season as a whole. Because of that, we haven't made any episode articles for Daredevil yet, just focused our efforts on season articles, but if one or two episodes truly did become noteworthy themselves, then we would look at making articles just for them.

Hopefully that all helps, good luck with the editing! - adamstom97 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent SHIELD episode

Hey. So like I said, just letting you know about the episode. To me, beyond them constantly saying "Sokovia Accords", there were two small things at the very top of the episode before the title card appears that could be considered spoilers. One is something that if I remember correctly, was one of the first things leaked when filming started on Civil War so you may know about it or remember (or piece it together) and the other I'm torn on how much of a spoiler it is. Obviously you can make your choice, but if you did watch the episode (which I thought was really good and sets up the finale) I don't think you will be spoiled or lose enjoyment when you do see the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's looking like I'll finally be able to see the film tomorrow morning, so I think I'll just hold off for now. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy! Yeah then totally just hold off. For the few little things in this episode, just wait on it. It will be good to have you back on the article. It wasn't too bad when I first started, but as you can see in the history, I made a whole string of edits getting it back into shape and had to deal with the box office section and a user as I thought. I think the page is in good order, outside of the plot, because that gets written and rewritten every day so I just steer clear of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think plot summaries may ever be the bane of these articles, like what was happening in the AoS episode articles! I'm very excited for the film, and the rest of season three, and I'll definitely be back into the articles straight away. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Gabriella Graves | Paul Rudd/Corey Stoll First Appearances

• Why do you think Gabriella Graves is unnotable to mention? Whenever anyone plays a younger version of Batman, Superman, Captain America or Tony Stark, the names of these young actors are mentioned in the tables. Plus, if you view Gabriella Graves as unnotable to mention, please remember that she has more screentime than Gerard Sanders, who only appeared in a photograph.
  • Also, YOU were incorrect to correct me about Paul Rudd and Corey Stoll appearing in WHIH Newsfront before Ant-Man. If you look up the episodes of WHIH Newsfront, you will find that the ones featuring Paul Rudd and Corey Stoll were released BEFORE Ant-Man!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TotalTruthTeller24 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If you look, you will see that we actually don't mention these briefly-younger actors for MCU articles. And I know that those guys were in the WHIH videos before they were in Ant-Man, but not in a way that is actually notable given they made the films first, and released the videos as marketing for said films. I said you were incorrect because I had read it as them being the first characters to transition from one medium to films, which is not true. Also, we are only listing the first actor to play multiple major characters (Bettany) not any tandom actor you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Shiled spinoff source unecessary?

To be frank, How is adding in another source completely unnecessary? All I did was add in another source from where it was discovered and two is better than one, why do you need to act so unflexible?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If we let everybody add extra sources because "two is better than one" then we are opening ourselves up to a ridiculous amount of unnecessary duplication and redundancy. There is no need for that information to be sourced multiple times, it is completely covered by the reference that is already there. That is why your edit was completely unnecessary, and why I am going to revert you once again. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but that's coming from someone who is being very unreasonable and unforgiving with just over a small source. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

What? You are acting like you are doing something really great and my unwillingness to be flexible is preventing it, but in reality you are just sticking in an unnecessary redundancy and I am pointing that fact out. There is no good reason to have both of these sources beyond you wanting them both, which is not a good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If that's how you want to act with me, then have it your way, but I had enough of you and your accusations at me.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) AnimeDisneylover95, the addition of the other source was not needed because it did not provide sourcing to any new information in the statement. References should really only be added if it provides new information not already on the article. Otherwise, one will do the trick. Additionally, the exact date things happen also does not have to be given. In 5, 10 years time, will it matter if something happened on May 2 instead of May 6? Obviously, there are some cases where being exact is necessary, but being general is the better way to go, with the phrasing "In [month] [year]". And c'mon Adam. You are so much better than the responses you gave Anime, plus this and this. Yeah things can get frustrating at times, but you have to be better than it and not take it out on others. What Anime did wasn't heinous and didn't deserve the tone you gave them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War

The articles for Captain America: Civil War and other MCU films constantly use surnames when referring to the fictional characters, even though they are usually referred to by the first names or superhero names elsewhere. Why use surnames for characters when we could occassionally refer to them by their superhero names or possibly even their first names? - TheRocknRollPat (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, this has been discussed many times before, so this isn't just my opinion. Basically, because this is a formal encyclopaedia we use surnames rather than first names, unless the latter is required to avoid any confusion. Superhero names can be used when appropriate, but for the most part the MCU films just treat characters like the Avengers as celebrities with real names who occasionally use code names, so it is generally better to refer to Rogers and Barnes, for example, rather than Captain America and the Winter Soldier, because that is how the films treat them. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! Please leave me a message on my talk page if you think I've made a mistake or have any questions on edits I make in the future. - TheRocknRollPat (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agent Carter (TV series)

The article Agent Carter (TV series) 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:Agent Carter (TV series) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agent Carter (season 2)

The article Agent Carter (season 2) 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:Agent Carter (season 2) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aoba47 -- Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Agent Carter

Careful, Adam; that's four ([1][2][3][4]) reverts on the one topic within 24 hours at Agent Carter (season 1); which is a violation of 3RR. Just a note, not taking it further or anything. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to lose track when we are discussing in the edit summaries like that. It's a bad habit that I've/we've fallen into. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I guess I'm fine with it at the moment; if the other editor reverts again, it might be best to take it to the talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessica Jones (season 1)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jessica Jones (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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jessica Jones (season 1)

The article Jessica Jones (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jessica Jones (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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Great job Adam! We've been knocking out a good number of these articles recently at GA. This ones doesn't have a DYK. Want to work with me on crafting one for us to nominate? I was thinking possibly how it won the Peabody Award, because I don't want it to be similar to the one the main series has, which talked about how the series was reworked from the ABC version. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been on a bit of a roll of late! I do think using the Peabody Award is a good idea, perhaps something simple like "... that the first season of the web television series Marvel's Jessica Jones was awarded a Peabody Award in the category of 'Entertainment and Children's programs'?" - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I like that. I'll get it all nominated and such. I'll include the link here when it's up so you can watch and follow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Jones (season 1). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Jones (season 1)

On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jessica Jones (season 1), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first season of the Netflix television series Marvel's Jessica Jones was awarded a Peabody Award in the category of "Entertainment and Children's programs"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Jones (season 1). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jessica Jones (season 1)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nom for Daredevil (season 2)

If you'd like to watch... Template:Did you know nominations/Daredevil (season 2). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Daredevil (season 2)

On 8 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daredevil (season 2), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the second season of Daredevil was referred to internally as "Daredevil vs. the Punisher"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daredevil (season 2). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daredevil (season 2)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

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

4,722 Hours

added a link pointing to Nerdist

The Dirty Half Dozen

added a link pointing to Nerdist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I saw your position on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)#Why Johnson not Daisy. There is a similar dispute in Arrow (season 1) and I'd like to know your opinion. --HamedH94 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. But right now I'm kinda attacked by an army of editors who believe they're right. And if I'm the only one on the other side, a consensus will appear and it's over. --HamedH94 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars Rebels episodes and shorts

why did you undo my edit on star wars rebels episodes?

I can tell you that the reason i moved the shorts away from the episode section and created a new section called "shorts" just for them, is because they aren't episodes, so it's tecnically wrong for them to be in the episodes section. It also looks more in order and more cordinated if the shorts has it's own section.

I also added season 3 episode 1-2. I did this because at star wars celebration it was confirmed that the first two episode (witch is a double episode) is called "Steps into Shadow".

Can you please change it back or at least give me a proper explenation to why it shouldn't be that way? --94.191.188.144 (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add the season 3 premiere then go ahead, just don't change the page's formatting while you do it. As for the shorts, many people have tried to move them already and they have always been reverted. So, if you really are set on moving them, please discuss the move over there first. But they really should stay where they are. If you look at the production codes you will see that they were actually produced as the first episode of the series. Also, they were released before the other episodes, are set before the other episodes, and were broadcast on TV. And there isn't anything necessarily wrong with including not-quite-episodes in a table like this. Otherwise, the option wouldn't exist in the tables' code for these and TV films and the like to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, i don't really know how to add season three to the series overveiw without changing the format. When i try to do it, it just doesn't look right. It actually looks totally messed up... I'm not really good with wikipedia "coding" so this was just the best I could do. But if you know how to do, why aren't you just doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.188.144 (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Since when was it up to me to this? Perhaps I don't feel like it right now, or I'm not in a position to do it. Either way, the only real issue is that you did it completely wrong. If you can't, or don't want to, figure out how to do it right, then just leave it. Someone else will do it eventually. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luke Cage (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Mariah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

SDCC

Thanks for your great expanding of info on the Netflix series. All of those announcements through me last night because for some reason, I thought the Netflix panel was today, with the AoS one tomorrow. Anyways, the AoS one should be a bit smoother today, given it should hopefully be contained to that show. The one to watch out for is Quesada's Cup o' Joe panel Saturday where that unannounced live-action TV trailer is going to play. His words are a bit weird regarding it if it is something completely new (ie like a Squirrel Girl series) or one we know about but just don't have other info on (ie Cloak and Dagger). My thoughts are it will either be a trailer for Ridley's secret show, Damage Control, or Cloak and Dagger. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was prepared for all that, and I agree that the S.H.I.E.L.D. panel should be more straight forward. But already this is looking to be one of the biggest cons in terms of reveals and surprises that I can remember. I'm cautiously optimistic that Marvel has a surprise show coming soon for Quesada to reveal, but it might also be something for the Fox shows that have already been announced. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Daredevil episode list page

Please explain at Talk:Daredevil (TV series)#Episode list page branch. Thank you. — Wyliepedia 05:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --HamedH94 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Shadows (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The article Shadows (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Shadows (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Dirty Half Dozen

The article The Dirty Half Dozen 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 Dirty Half Dozen for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Face My Enemy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Face My Enemy 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Face My Enemy

The article Face My Enemy 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:Face My Enemy for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eye Spy opening sequence.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eye Spy opening sequence.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Face My Enemy

The article Face My Enemy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Face My Enemy 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

The article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (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:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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

Daredevil (TV series)

added a link pointing to Golden Reel Awards

Daredevil (season 1)

added a link pointing to Golden Reel Awards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

The article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

About Game of Thrones: Season 6 Episodes

Hello. First of all I like to thank you for taking the time for the review(The Door). I also wanted to ask you, if you have the time. Could you look at(review) the last two episodes of Game of Thrones (season 6), which are nominated for an GA. Those two articles have been worked on, and all that. These two articles should easily pass GAN, as it is similiar to the The Door article.

• Battle of the Bastards
• The Winds of Winter (Game of Thrones)

Thanks in advance. - AffeL (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2016

It won't be right away, but I'm sure I can have a look at them. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Those two articles i mentioned above have already passed. But there are still some episode from Season 6 that has been nominated for a very long time now. I just wanted to ask you, if you have the time, could you look and review any of the episodes from season six that I have nominated?.

This is the list of the episodes left to be reviewed btw:

• Home (Game of Thrones)
• Oathbreaker (Game of Thrones)
• Book of the Stranger
• Blood of My Blood
• The Broken Man
• No One (Game of Thrones)

Thanks in advance. - AffeL (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2016

I saw that, well done. I am pretty busy right now, but when I'm not if these still need to be done then I'm sure I can do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe TV Series Section

Regarding the changes made on the Marvel Cinematic Universe article, kindly see my comments on the article's talk page. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 06:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Work in your sandbox

I've been following your edits in your third sandbox for the MCU music since your sandbox is on my watchlist (probably from something a while ago). Anyways, don't know what your timeline for it is, but before you plan to move it to the mainspace/get outside opinions, ping me and I'll take a good look through what you've done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case. I found myself with quite a bit of free time a few months back and decided to have another go at this. My approach this time is to focus on the music itself, like the style, themes, instrumentation, etc., and I'm pretty happy with how the article is turning out. I've just got a couple wee bits to do, and then I'll ping you to have a look through. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've just seen you doing the work and haven't actually read much of it, so I'll be totally fresh eyes on it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: You can have a read of it now, or when you are free. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully will get to it soon. By next week for sure. Do you mind if I make edits as I go? And how much of this is pulled from the existing articles? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. We can discuss anything specific during/after as well. I used the existing articles, including your sandbox and the soundtrack articles, as a starting point, but did a lot of extra research on top of that. If/when we move it to the mainspace, I'll go through and try to minimise any diplicate info at the other pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool. That's what I wanted to be sure we avoided (duplication) and I'm glad you thought of it. You'll see me probably editing a bit here and there then. If this section is still on your talk, I'll let you know when I'm done. If not, I'll just start a new section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I haven't forgotten about this. Just been really busy. Still on my to do list! Also, we have a lot of material on the AoS S4 writing section now that I think it would be good to migrate some of it over to the main article too. I was thinking things along the lines of everything in the final paragraph about the new timeslot and what I just added about why Ghost Rider was chosen for SHIELD over a Netflix show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I knew you would just have been busy. I was going to give you a reminder soon, but there is obviously still no hurry. I'll have a look over that S.H.I.E.L.D. stuff. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What was your reasoning for not including the main tags? Also, how come you did not format the article like our other lists, with the tables under the level 2 heading, and then the subsequent level 3 headings? I'll continue going through the rest of the article, but I'm wondering if it would be better for a lot of this info to get added to the soundtrack articles and/or the music sections, rather than having it on a separate article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My thought process was that this isn't a list of soundtracks, it is an article that can get very specific about the actual music, with the soundtrack articles focusing more on the actual soundtrack releases, and the music sections giving an overview of the two. So a brief overview of everything in the music section with a main link to a soundtrack article. There, all the real world, behind the scenes soundtrack release info plus a short paragraph on the actual music with a further link to the music page. There, in depth music stuff for all the projects. I think it is best to separate the music and the soundtracks, although I doubt that it is commonly done, because the music isn't made for the soundtrack, it's made for the film/TV show, and just so happens to be released on a soundtrack later. That's also why I've listed all the soundtrack releases near the bottom of the article, where we would usually list home media releases. After that and the reception table I thought adding another set of tables was overkill. We can adjust up the heading levels though, I was just trying to not list every film and TV show in the table of contents.

Once you've gone through the rest of the article I can mock up some examples of music sections and soundtrack articles so you can get a better idea of how I see them all fitting together. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I can understand that. You should just double check the film MOS, MOS:MUSIC and MOS:ALBUM for soundtrack articles to make sure things shouldn't all be in one spot, even though your reasoning is good in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this a bit more (still going to get to the rest of the c/e), but based on what you wanted to accomplish, I think it might be better to move what you have here to the individual articles' Music sections, and what you wanted to put there (the combo of this and the soundtracks) at this sandbox article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the music stuff I have here is a bit too detailed and specific to fit into the film articles. I see it as, people reading the film/TV articles can learn all about those and the normal things we cover for them, including an overview of the music, and then if they are really into music and want to learn more about specific musical themes and instrumentation then we can have one place for all of that. This is similar to Music of The Lord of the Rings film series and Music of Star Wars, which go into all the themes and stuff don't would seem out of place in the film articles. The difference is that our article will be well sourced and written. Also, this article does bring it all together and discuss the actual music of the franchise as a whole by discussing the reusing of themes, and the collective response down in the reception section. Hopefully you see what I mean when you get down there. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I just have to hit the sections for AoS, Daredevil and Jessica Jones and then I'm done. I'm not going to look at your refs because I'm going to assume it's all good in terms of formatting and them sourcing what you're claiming is being sourced (and I really really don't want to go through that many lol). Only think I have at the moment is in regards to the reception section, if some of that should maybe be under an analysis section? Yes, stating the lack of continuity between scores is reception, but it reads more like an analysis of the music, especially since most of it is on the music as a whole, not really individually. Plus, the list of films and tv series just use the table for the reception section. Let me know what you think. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding an analysis sub heading. And I'm pretty confident with all the refs, as I started going through them all from scratch when I first started in my sandbox a couple months ago. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

All done. What are you hoping to do next? Get other's inputs, or just move it into the mainspace? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to put a bit of thought into what should happen, exactly, to the existing music sections and articles, and maybe mock some stuff up for that first. But then, if you agree, I felt we should just move it to the mainspace. This isn't like the WHIH page, which everyone seemed to be against initially so a short discussion seemed like a good idea. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing that. I also don't mind if you just want to copy/paste the content from the sandbox to the mainspace, rather than move and try and deal with cutting out the edits at the very beginning of your sandbox history that were related to other items. It doesn't matter to me if my c/e work is reflected in the history or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I'll sort it out then. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the GA Changedforbetter (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Aww, you're welcome :) - adamstom97 (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

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

Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

added links pointing to Celtic, John Barry, Partition, Reboot, Broadway, Crossover, Messianic, Golden Reel Awards, Winter Soldier, Turn, Turn, Turn, Daredevil (Marvel Comics), Alan Taylor, Craig Armstrong, John Powell, D23, Steven Price and Nerdist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Now is Not the End

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Now is Not the End 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Now is Not the End

The article Now is Not the End 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:Now is Not the End for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Now is Not the End

The article Now is Not the End you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Now is Not the End 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4,722 Hours

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4,722 Hours 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4,722 Hours

The article 4,722 Hours 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:4,722 Hours for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 4,722 Hours

The article 4,722 Hours you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:4,722 Hours 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 Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The article Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

The article Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eye Spy (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Good Article backlog elimination drive barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Thank you for your participation in the August 2016 GAN backlog drive! JAGUAR  13:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of films based on Marvel Comics

If you have a sec to just look at this article, I'm in a dispute with another edit. I'm currently (or exceeded) my reverts and I would appreciate a third voice in the matter, regardless of how you view the situation. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The Avengers "classified"

I'm afraid when so many people complained about the use of the word, you might have to consider that you are the one in the wrong. Hzh (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the decision making process on this one, I am merely pointing out that this has been discussed a lot already and so should not just be changed like that without further discussion. I will continue this over at the article's talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

AoS S4 cast listing....

...is back up in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

What is a "minority character"? Does this mean she is a part of some sort of minority? Perhaps it is supposed to be minor character, but that doesn't make sense either, since it has been explicitly stated that Number One will be the series protagonist. This is the issue my edit addressed. Kariemil (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Minority is referring to her ethnicity (she will be black or hispanic or something along those lines), and is how our reliable sources are referring to her. It may not be the best, but I think it is preferable to people trying to call non-white people "diverse", which actually makes no sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case I would go with "person of color." Minority can mean too many things. Kariemil (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

We also need to edit the sentence "A female, minority character serving as a lieutenant commander aboard the Discovery, rather than a starship captain like the previous Star Trek series' protagonists, so as "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has a different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context."" It is way too long. Kariemil (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really think we should be referring to someone as a "person of color". "Minority" may be vague, but it is just as vague as the producers are being; we can wait until they provide more insight before we do (WP:NORUSH). And I'll give the sentence a c/e. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

More MCU Music analysis

Just saw this video which comments on why the Marvel Music is so "blah". It's a verified YouTube account so it's fine to add. I'm not going to be on much this week and next, so I wanted to share it with you if you wanted to add it at all incase I don't have the chance to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

MCU Daisy Johnson

Why exactly was the page deleted? You said that all of the character pages are for original MCU characters yet Claire Temple isn't one. She comes from the comics. And Daisy has appeared in more than one project. Granted it wasn't a film or series but a comic, but that would still be considered as a second project appearence. You also said that it doesn't stand out as needing a seperate page. Doesn't it have more content and references than the article for Erik Selvig? Lastly you said that I copied the page, which is mostly true. Couldn't I have been given the time and chance to expand or change it? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have a look at the Claire Temple MCU page, you will see that she is an original character inspired by several others. And the MCU version of Daisy has only been in one proper MCU project, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. I'm not comparing the need for a separate article to the Selvig page either, as that is a different situation. I meant that if you look at the list of characters page, she isn't necessarily the first one who needs their own article. We shouldn't just split off character articles from the character list because we want to, there sort of needs to be a good reason to. Coulson has his own page because he has been in movies and One-Shots as well, and we have background information for all of that. Claire got her own article because she appears across all the Netflix shows, and we have details about that arrangement. At the moment, there isn't anything more to Daisy than her role on S.H.I.E.L.D. really, and all her info fits at the character list fine. If you have some content for her, or you just want to help, then you can try improving the list itself as it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So, basically what you're saying is that Daisy needs more prominence in order to warrant having her own article on Wikipedia. I guess that's fair. I only have two more questions if you don't mind me asking. Firstly, I noticed on the MCU portal pages that there are numerous drafts for things like Jessica Jones (season 2), Inhumans (film) etc., would it be acceptable for me to create a similar draft for Daisy? Secondly, does the need for prominence and appearences in multiple media apply only to MCU characters or all characters in general? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It applies to all characters, in that they need to be notable to get their own article, and extra notable if there is already a good place for them like the character lists. As for the drafts, those are really for articles that are probably ready to exist, but it isn't quite time yet (for instance, we aren't supposed to make an article about a film until it starts filming, so we make the article in a draft first). In this case, I would suggest working on this potential article in your personal sandbox. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So this is OK then, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PanagiotisZois/Daisy_Johnson_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe)? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can basically do what you want with your user space. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luke Cage (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul McGuigan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AoS Agent Davis

I hope you see this before you see the few edits I did with cast members. I removed Max Osinski because the 401 source credits him as "Agent Red". However, IMDb and the MCU wiki both have him as "Agent Davis" in 401 and the season 1 ep "Repairs". Yet, the Futon source for Repairs does not have him credited. I think we should hold off on this until it is more clear. I also don't remember him being called "Davis" in the new ep. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I watched the new episode again, and he is called Davis, so I don't know why they listed him as Red. He is also in "Repairs" even if he isn't listed by Futon, so he is definitely in both episodes, but is hardly all that notable. That is why I removed some of these minor characters from the "Notable guests" sections. These guys tend to not even get guest star credit, they are essentially glorified extras meant to give us some familiar faces beyond the main cast. I think just noting them in the casting section is fine, honestly, and not putting them on the same level as actual notable guests. Also with Anderson, the reason he was not listed as recurring for season 3 was because he never had a proper role or was credited as a guest star. Yes he showed up in four episodes, but is he really a recurring character in the show? This is the same as Agents Yauch and Vega from Agent Carter; they both appear in at least four episodes, but they aren't actually recurring characters the same as Stark or Frost. Personally, I would only move Anderson to recurring if he actually has a role in the episode, rather than standing in the background for a few scenes and handing someone an iPad. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason I pulled the minor S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to the top of the guest section, is that we were dropping lots of minor S.H.I.E.L.D. agents who are just there to populate the organisation all throughout the season lists, when really they all come under the same point: they are minor S.H.I.E.L.D. agents who have appeared in multiple episodes. They aren't recurring characters, they are barely guest characters, but we could just group them together in a brief sentence at the top of the guest section before getting on to the more noteworthy ones. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. That's weird about Osinski's character then. We'll need a new source for that since the 401 is no good. I think in terms of the notable guest characters in season 4, we should make those changes at the end of the season, and just see how things pan out. At least for Anderson, I know he is a minor person, but since he was already at 4 appearances, and is now coming back for at least 403, he should be listed at the LoC with the Recurring characters. I think he should be mentioned at the season 3 page, but the only thing about only doing prose (which I'm fine with) and not in the list section, is we might have an issue of someone trying to add them there, because technically they fit the bill to what we defined. Also for O'Brien Oliver, who I added at season 2, he had five appearances, so I think he should definitely be included as recurring and at the LoC. As for pulling out the minor agents, I get that, but I don't see why we have to do that, because we could say the same thing for like Donnie Gill, you know? At the moment, it is just the three of them in there (and Piper might be moving out given how many more times she appears and that she seems to be a prominent member of May's strike team) so I think we can hold off on doing that wording/formatting at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'm happy to revisit this stuff later then. Just wondering what five appearances you have for O'Brien, as I only count three ("Melinda" flashbacks, "Failed Experiments", and "Absolution" I think). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry! I've been getting them confused. I put OLIVER in season 2 as recurring as well as at the LoC, not O'Brien. You are correct that O'Brien had three appearances. Oliver appears in 214, 219, 220, 221, 222. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, unrelated, a promo for 402 gives us the Director's first name, and based on that on the other info we know, I know who he is. I won't link to the character if you don't want to be spoiled just yet, but can if you want to know. I'm pretty excited by it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing with Oliver was that he was, again, not actually a guest star, and didn't seem notable enough to be listed as more than a guest. Anyway, I've seen speculation about who the Director is, but I don't really know enough about the comics myself. Once we know, hopefully after tomorrow, I'll look into him. I just hope he sticks around for a while, even if we don't see him every episode. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to start a discussion on the S2 talk about him, for a formatting idea I have, because it will be better to have it there, then buried in a conversation here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luke Cage (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul McGuigan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Legion (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vanity Fair and Mr. Robot. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Trevor Slattery

I have created a section on the talk page. I await your participation.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FitzSimmons in FZZT.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FitzSimmons in FZZT.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Revert?

Feel entirely free to point out the guideline that notes that this is the "status quo" to not capitalize titles, as per your reasoning for this revert. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, when there is a content dispute that is taken to the talk page, the article should remain as it was before the dispute began until new consensus is formed. This (ideally) prevents edit warring while the discussion takes place. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

The Hollywood Reporter stated that there would be "an openly gay actor as one of the male leads" which you described as "with one of the male leads to be openly gay in the series" which misrepresents the quote way beyond its meaning. See What Wikipedia is not. Damiantgordon (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Damiantgordon: I assume you are joking. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The article says the actor is gay, not the character; you think to state the character is gay makes logical sense, but is not part of the report and therefore plainly unencyclopedic. I wish I were joking, but it appears you are confused as to the difference between facts and interpretation. Damiantgordon (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, wow. I can't believe I screwed that up that bad. Yes, you are absolutely correct, and I apologise profusely. The fact that it said "actor" apparently just did not register with me both when I was reading the report and when I responded to your post here. Sorry again! - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's all good, Bryan Fuller has said it so often that there definitely will be an LGBT character on the show, that it's easy to read it in that way.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that The Hollywood Reporter got it wrong and they meant "an openly gay CHARACTER as one of the male leads" Damiantgordon (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Cap CW DYK

Hey. Didn't know if you wanted to help nominate this for DYK, since it didn't have one. I'm not able to be on here very much this week, so if you could nominated, that be great. But I don't want to put this on you if you're not interested. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I could look at it later in the week. I'm pretty busy with exams at the moment and haven't been on here as much, plus I'm sort of trying to avoid stuff until I see Doctor Strange (hopefully in the next couple days!). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I don't know how long we have to nominate it, but don't feel obligated. If I can get time to dedicate to writing it up and doing the nom I will. And have a good time! Still salty that Marvel waits so long to show the film in the US after other territories get it first, but at least it isn't as long as some of the other films. I'm already off watching relevant articles and will try to see the film on opening weekend here. If you do see it, let me know, so I know the article still has good eyes on it :) (and we have protection too!) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I'll let you know what happens. And we only seem to get the biggest movies before America, so I can still relate (more award-type movies don't tend to come out until months after America has them, so that sucks). I stopped watching the page the other day, but I figured that not too much could go wrong before I get back to it (fingers crossed haha). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm also composing the box office section in my sandbox here, because that is always a disaster with users added every little detail and generally day by day breakdowns. I also have a diff for the Doctor Strange article for when I left, knowing all was good with it to that point if you want to start from that when you get back to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I just watched the movie. I thought it was going to be good, but it actually exceeded my expectations and I'm pleasantly surprised. Enjoy it when you get to see it. I'm going to have a look through the articles now and make sure they are alright. I'll probably leave the box office stuff alone for now though. I might get to the DYK, but I'll have to review a separate one first for the QPQ. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Great!! Glad you enjoyed it! I'm so excited to see it. If I may, did you see it in (IMAX) 3D? If you did, what were your thoughts? That's how I'm trying to see it. Thanks for taking a look at the articles. I'm on now for a bit, going through to help add things I missed over the last few days. A big thing was Feige's interview at Collider for the LoFilms article. I'll keep avoiding that since that there may be spoilers on it. Also, I can handle some box office stuff. If you see links, or anything currently on the article regarding it, feel free to dump it in my sandbox. And I have an idea for the Cap DYK, so I'll take care of that too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw it in standard 3D (unfortunately the only IMAX screen in New Zealand is at the other end of the country), and I think it was worth it for when all the crazy stuff is happening. I tried to avoid all the TV spots and such, so I hadn't seen a lot of the other dimension stuff going in which was great. There are definitely a few big things in the movie that I'm happy weren't spoiled for me which I am going to make sure are added properly now. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Yeah I'm pumped. Sadly, I couldn't help myself and read that article that came out around the premiere about the post-credit scenes, so I know about them (womp womp). But I haven't watch any of the TV spot so hopefully most of it will all be fresh for me (I've just seen the same scenes from the trailer over and over, so those I'll know). And there was the ever persistent rumor since production began that Dormammu may be in it somehow, so I have that idea going in, but not any specifics. But still no spoilers! ;) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you get a sec too, Thor (Marvel Comics) in other media will need a proper update too to the MCU section, assuming you've found a source for the info I'm referring too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've tried to make the section a wee bit more exciting as well, rather than just listing the films he's been in, but nothing drastic. Doctor Strange is fine as well, I rewrote the plot summary and then gave the entire article a major c/e and expansion. It is looking pretty good, if I might say so myself, and someone has even nominated it for GA. It's obviously a bit early for that, but the sentiment is appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the GA nom. I've auto failed it, since it can't be nominated yet, and asked an admin to delete the nom subpage so we can start at /GA1 again when it is time. Glad to know the article is in good shape and you adjusted it some more (I had tried to do some before the film released). One more week for me, and then I'll be back! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Captain America: Civi War

Naw, I just wanted to add it and the archive link to the talk page in case editors ever had a dispute about credits, so that there would be a source to go to. But you know, you got me thinking: The official cast/crew credits probably do belong in the article. I don't think anyone would mind if I added it as an EL. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, I just meant that you've added your talk page notice to the Civil War GA review page rather than the Civil War talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.-related

I heard you are the one who had Jemma Simmons' page originally redirected to the character page for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. I'd like to let you know that I just found out that her Earth-616 counterpart has been converted into a Deathlok in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. #10. When it comes time, we'll need to have the pages of the characters established on this website like they did with Phil Coulson and Erik Selvig when they crossed over into the comics. Especially since Grant Ward's earlier appearance in the comics has him wearing a copy of one of Iron Man' armors. Outside of that, have you seen the latest episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.? --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm up to date and enjoying it. The thing with those characters is that they are still just Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters, who have appeared in the comics, so they still fit at the AoS character list fine (unlike Coulson, for example, who has information on his page from movies as well). For now, they should just be left as is. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Once that day happens, then we can add their pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Captain America: Civil War

On 3 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Captain America: Civil War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Captain America: Civil War was originally going to feature the Madbomb storyline from the comics, where Captain America would fight other heroes who had been zombified? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Captain America: Civil War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Captain America: Civil War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars VIII

Hi!

I've seen you comment on the talk page of the Star Wars: Episode VIII article. I would appreciate your input on a matter I just posted here.

Thanks in advance.

N. GASIETA|talk 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Strange Hong Kong advertisement.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Strange Hong Kong advertisement.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for the work you did watching over Doctor Strange until the NA release, and copy-editing and expanding it as you did (along with anyone else). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I did most of the expansion myself from a lot of good articles I found, particularly explaining some of the film's processes (Ancient One casting, Derrickson and Spaihts hiring, Landecker's role, etc.). I'm really happy with how the page is looking, though I've still been avoiding the BO section. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I can 100% take that on! :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Strange alias

Hey it should be Stephen Strange / Doctor Strange OMG — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianGamer (talk • contribs) 08:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, see the discussion at the Doctor Strange talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Inhumans series

I guess this pretty much implies that the Inhumans movie isn't happening. Do whatever development you want here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Holden Radcliffe

It's highly inconsequential, and absolutely nothing I want to get in an edit-war over, but if you are using "Dr." it is an honorific and academic title, and is specifically being used to address the individual; it is a part of their title and their name. If you wrote "doctor Holden Radcliffe", yes, it should not be included, as you are simply stating his occupation and qualifying his role and a quality about him. I may be overlooking a wiki guideline that places the title outside of the link, but that is just my interpretation and understanding of the formal use of the title as well as my reasoning and case for the edit! Cheers! -Uncleben85 (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There is probably a guideline concerning this somewhere, but I do know that we have pretty consistently agreed around these parts that titles should not be given as part of someones name. It is also for that reason that we don't use titles when listing characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Uncleben85: MOS:DOCTOR. Titles, such as "Dr." are not part of a person's name, even fictional. So while it is fine to have "Dr. Holden Radcliffe", the link should only include "Holden Radcliffe". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! And that's good to know, thank you! -Uncleben85 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adamstom.97. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Agent Carter. logo.png

A tag has been placed on File:Agent Carter. logo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

You reverted my edit and said it was not true, and that Michelle Yeoh's role is only recurring in one of the references. I can't see it:

The first reference is:

• http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/29/star-trek-discovery-cast-gay

and all it says about her is

• "CBS Access is now confirming Michelle Yeoh will join the show"
• "And finally, Yeoh, who was previously reported as joining the cast, will play Captain Georgiou, the Starfleet Captain aboard the Starship Shenzhou."

The second reference is:

• http://deadline.com/2016/11/star-trek-discovery-michelle-yeoh-cast-captain-1201859554/

and all it says about her is

• "Sources confirm to Deadline that the upcoming CBS All Access iteration of the fabled franchise will see Yeoh playing a Starfleet Captain."
• "However, before you start mapping out the deck of the Discovery, sources close to the production tell us exclusively that Yeoh actually will be the leader of another ship. We hear that Yeoh has been cast as Han Bo and her ship is the Shenzhou. The Yeoh-run spacecraft is set to play a big role in Discovery‘s first season."
• "News that Michelle Yeoh had come aboard Star Trek: Discovery first was revealed in an interview with consulting producer Nicholas Meyer, published by Coming Soon, which provided no information about her character."

Where does it say she is only recurring?

Damiantgordon (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In the casting section, where she is clearly sourced as being recurring. It is not the sort of information we add to the cast section, as it would just be ridiculous to have every character under a 'Recurring' headline state that they are recurring. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking at the wrong references, you are completely right, I completely apologise, thanks Damiantgordon (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That's alright, I was getting confused myself since everyone seemed to think that she wasn't recurring when I was pretty sure that I had sourced her as such. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Luke Cage S1

Hey. Since we got the renewal, in case you got to splitting stuff before me if you choose, here's the season poster and I think, with this poster, we should change the episode color to   3E290C, since the brown is much more prominent in the poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I've already started working on the split. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll upload the poster. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Slingshot on the main MCU article

Didn't know if you saw the discussion on the main MCU talk, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the best way to proceed in including it on that article. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just thinking about it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Didn't want it to come across as I was rushing or forcing you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Accolades

Hi. Could you explain me why the changes I made in the "Accolades" sections of the articles Iron Man (2008 film), Iron Man 2 and Thor (film) are not correct? Facu-el Millo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I didn't give a better explanation at the time. This is the standard format that I am aware of, and we use it over all the MCU articles. The idea is that the table is sortable, so you can reorder it based on each column. This divides up each row into individual entries, which is how we should be looking at each thing. So any expanded cells would simply be based on what is easiest for our readers during the initial look before anyone starts customising the table how they like. The consensus for that initial look seems to be showing each award individually, but as a "child" of an awards show, which lead to the standard practice of expanding the year and show cells, but keeping the awards, their recipients, and the result separate. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. Thanks. Facu-el Millo (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Captain Marvel (film)

Regarding this edit, how are those not independent clauses? "Feige expected a director to be announced by the end of 2016" and "Perlman and LeFauve turned in a script treatment around December, pushing additional meetings with director candidates into early 2017" are both sentences on their own. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't word that correctly, but the semi-colon didn't work because the clauses contradicted each other and required the conjoining "however". The semi-colon would have worked if it was "...expected a director to be announced by the end of 2016; in December, ___ was announced in the role..." But because we had to say "however" and then go against the first clause, the two parts of the sentence no longer worked separately. Semi-colons connect clauses that are related and can both be stated independently of one another. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semicolons are used with a conjunctive adverb to link two independent clauses. A comma would be appropriate only if either of the two parts being linked could not stand on its own as a complete sentence. See this as an example. - DinoSlider (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, that's a new one for me. Thanks for the link. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the civil discussions that you and most of the regular MCU editors typically engage in. Wiki discussions can often turn into ugly arguments very quickly. It is refreshing to see a core group of editors that aren't bullies. - DinoSlider (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That's alright. I was looking back through my archives recently, remembering how disruptive and unhelpful I was when I first started out. I doubt we would have all these articles in such a good place if I and others still acted like that. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Season's Greetings, Adamstom.97! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Adamstom.97: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 09:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)