Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:29, 30 November 2017

Archives

Archive 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome to my Talk Page!If you are leaving a note, please remember to be civil and not to include any personal attacks, and please remember to sign your message. This talk page is automatically archived, so if you don't see your thread anymore, please start a new one.

Thor: Ragnarok

Hey. Just wanted you to know I'm seeing the film Sunday and will be back to watching and editing the article then. I looked at your contributions and saw you are editing it, which I'm glad to know it isn't a total disaster. I have a bunch of articles I've been back logging to add info to the article. Hopefully you've seen some of them and added it, but if not, there will (hopefully) be a large expansion tomorrow. Also don't know what the box office section is looking like, but can work it/adjust as I've done with recently with other MCU articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, have fun. I'm not sure about the box office section and haven't dealt with the critical response section yet either, but I think I have a good handle on the rest. I've already added some of the recent articles that jave come out, but I'm sure there'll be some stuff for you to deal with then. (P.S. just to show the silliness of the distribution model and also my enjoyment of the film, I have already seen it twice). - adamstom97 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's so insane. I get wanting to get an extra leg in the international market, but waiting the extra weekend is killer here. But conversely, has Inhumans debuted for you yet? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I get the ABC shows same day as the US, but I know a lot of places don't, and the Arrowverse shows for this season don't debut here until next year. It is really random. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The Gifted (TV series)

What exactly was wrong with my edits?.109.146.144.51 (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You linked something to the article for something else. The Sentinel Services are not Sentinels themselves. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. That makes sense. So what was wrong with my first edit?.109.146.144.51 (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration carries different connotations than what we saw in the episode. He was seen working with the Sentinel Services, but saying that they were collaborating is a bit much. He was hardly completely on board with it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits at Thor

I'm not sure why you are ignoring my comments in previous edits, but perhaps it's because you haven't seen them. I have restored many of the changes. Please address what it is you disagree with on the article's talk page, but a wholesale revert of my edit is uncalled for without discussion. I will assume good faith that this was unintentional on your part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not trying to ignore your comments. It is hard to address them all when there is 10, 20, or more edits since I last looked that need to be sorted out. I have retained some of your changes in my most recent edit, but there are some of your changes that I am against, including the unnecessary change of format to the first paragraph, which is consistent with the other film articles (and I see no good reason to break with that pattern now); your use of "the following October", when we are talking about the October of the same year not the next one; saying "in 3D, IMAX, and IMAX 3D formats", which sounds grammatically weird; "has been referred to as" sounds unnecessarily vague and poses the question of 'referred to as by whom?' rather than directly attributing the claim to the positive reviews; not stating that it is Waititi's direction, even though that is implied, because the critics were very specific about who they attributed the film's success to so I think we should be as well; and saying "musical score" instead of music, when the critics were praising both the score and the use of the "Immigrant Song" in the film, and music covers both of those. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

For clarification, "score" was present in the article before I touched it. My reversion placed it back in by mistake. I've considered some of your objections, and I appreciate that you've implemented some of the changes, but there are still some issues that I've addressed on the talk page. Feel free to weigh in there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ant Man

I don't really want to get into an edit war here, but the wording you reverted makes very little sense in the context. It is at the end of two paragraphs talking about how the film came about, it makes no sense, to suddenly then try to summarize. Also as I alluded too, the description is a copyright violation from here, In addition to both of those problems we have a lead section and a plot section which detail what the film is about for those that are intrested. No one who reads this far is going to be in the dark about what the film is about. --Deathawk (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The information you randomly deleted is not summary information, it is new information not yet discussed (the lead does not count, since that is supposed to summarise the article body). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My main concern was deleting the summary, which, like I discussed was awkwardly worded. In doing so I tried to reword the other information in the surrounding sentances to make it work, which can be summed up as "Marvel hired Wright" --Deathawk (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

But you removed more than just the official hiring of Wright. If your problem is with the wording of that summary, then deal with that and not just everything around it. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You're right, there was more, but it didn't really say that much. The bulk of the important info can be summed up with what how I put it. --Deathawk (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spider-Man: Homecoming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spider-Man: Homecoming 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 Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

RFC on Film MOS

I opened up an RFC on proposed changes to the Film:MOS regarding proposed guidelines for production sections. You can vote on it here Thanks. --Deathawk (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Spider-Man: Homecoming

The article Spider-Man: Homecoming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Spider-Man: Homecoming 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 Slightlymad -- Slightlymad (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thor cont'd

Thought I'd give you a heads up there was a recent discussion at MOS:FILM (link) in an attempt to clarify best wording of the RT statement. I can understand that in a recently released film, the date can be omitted if that's your preference, but other changes and enhancements were made based on input from multiple editors. If you don't agree with these, I recommend starting a new thread there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that discussion, and it specifically applies to films released before Rotten Tomatoes existed, so it doesn't apply to this film. Also, the specific wording used for this statement is highly debated at articles like this, so I think major changes should be discussed with that in mind, in case a change needs to be made across several articles. But again, the discussion you have linked to is not applicable in this situation. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the discussion beginning over other concerns, editors did weigh in on how they felt the RT statement should be phrased. Adding the date at the beginning of the statement is the only part that pertains to the pre-RT discussion. The rest of the statement can apply to any film. Some of the concerns raised, such as this one, have nothing to do with pre-RT films. I'm not going to go through articles changing it to this format for the sake of doing so, but I think there's a good reason to avoid the "/" in place of "out of" when writing a ratio in plain text. Other minor changes that reduce the use of unnecessary commas also make sense. If you disagree with the way the statement is presented in the guideline, it might be a good idea to bring it up at some point. I wouldn't oppose further tweaking if you see a reason to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Adamstom.97. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; currently Misplaced Pages needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Adamstom.97. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Infinity Wars edits

I believe that much of the info in the intro to the article is excessive, to the point where it's not summarizing the article as a whole as much as it is simply parroting information from later in the article. For instance, and probably my chief concern is. that the lead specially notes that the title was changed from Infinity Wars part 1, to simply Infinity Wars and it gives the date to when that change occurred. This is not summary material, this is a very specific detail that people would normally look for in the production section. Putting it up in the lead makes the article as a whole look sloppy. --Deathawk (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you take issue with specific wording then feel free to give it a c/e, but the lead is supposed to summarise the key points. You shouldn't just delete half of the summary because you don't like it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete half the summary, I deleted two sentances at most, and much of the information there I waould still consider excessive even with rewording. In my opinion what's happening is that the article is trying to summarize a narrative, where a clear one does not exist. Look at the lead for Ant Man or the original Avengers. These read like natural evolution summarizing the major points, the lead for Infinity Wars however reads like someone mistakingly put production section info in the lead. --Deathawk (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Look again, you deleted as close to half of the paragraph as possible. And look at those other articles you mentioned, they have the same writer and director info. The only thing different about this one is the mention of the title change, and that has been a pretty big and notable thing with the film, which is why it was deemed noteworthy enough for the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Posting this on your talk page...

...since you appear unwilling to remain to remain focused on article content, and it'll be a cold day in Muspel before I get into another back and forth about user behaviour on an article talk page.

You do realize that if you make an off-topic, uncivil remark and are asked to strike, and refuse as you did here, that can be taken as an indication that you are refusing to abide by our core conduct policies of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA despite having been warned, right? You can be blocked for that. It's actually worse than edit-warring or violating our content policies, as far as how the community and the admin corps are willing to treat it: veteran accounts are almost never blocked for edit-warring unless their owners are not only tendentious editors but are careless about it, and usually the most you will get for content violations is a TBAN.

You really should be more considerate of others when using the talk pages: I have just as much of a right to be there as you do, and your constantly making me feel unwelcome (going back several years now) has never been appreciated. But this new aggressive streak you appear to be on is totally unacceptable.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I thought I'd comment here, given that Adam's talk page is on my watchlist, and I agree with much of what he said on the Agent Carter talk page. Just as you've got every right to be here, so does he. He has the right to contribute to as many articles as he wants, with as much content as he wants, and especially with the amount that he's contributed to such articles, he has the right to defend the content and articles. Especially when you return to a year-old discussion to claim some sort of victory, while we know that Misplaced Pages is not about WINNING, and dictate that you can add tags without revert to reliably sourced content and after the discussion has long concluded, without at least an attempt at discussion first, whether on an article or user talk page.

Yes, I've got a right to post this very message as well, so don't believe you can say that I do not. We're sick of editors like you, coming in like you have on this very talk page, throwing around threats of administrators and blocks and bans, and demanding that we respect you, when what we give you is simply a reflection of exactly what you've given us. Treat others how you expect to be treated. Don't expect civility when you won't act civil to us, when you don't do the same for us, with all of your holier-than-thou acting.

You complain about personal attacks and feeling unwelcome, and yet I recall you talking about how t's pretty rich seeing someone who has on at least one occasion taken the side of the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles with an iron fist to accuse another user of OWN behaviour. If you want editors to respect you, then practice what you preach. You've been warned as well. After that comment and others thoughts you've enlightened us with, it is clear that the only reason you return to contribute to these articles and talk pages, when you've stated you have little interest in them, is to start further drama and drive editors out. This is totally unacceptable. -- Alex 12:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)