Crafterstar (talk | contribs) →Merry Christmas: new section Tag: New topic |
+ Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 178: | Line 178: | ||
Merry Christmas to you, Trailblazer101. I hope you have a great 2024. [[User:Crafterstar|Crafterstar]] ([[User talk:Crafterstar|talk]]) 02:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas to you, Trailblazer101. I hope you have a great 2024. [[User:Crafterstar|Crafterstar]] ([[User talk:Crafterstar|talk]]) 02:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
== ''Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom'' == |
|||
Since you already breached [[WP:3RR]] (you reverted six times or something) while dealing with an IP, I advise you to at least not remove sourced info as you did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquaman_and_the_Lost_Kingdom&diff=1191778139&oldid=1191772600 here]. We cannot change what the source reports for early reaction just because we don't like it and make stuff up to remove it. [[User talk:Nyxaros|<small><span style="color:OrangeRed; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">ภץאคгöร</span></small>]] 07:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Please read my reason for the revert. If you want to add information from critics, please do so by citing their actual reviews, not just RT's editorial roundup. We already have RT's critical score details. Their roundup is not a standard. The IP reverts are a separate issue of disruption. (It was also only three reverts for the IP in a 24-hour period. That's not a violation. I've dealt with these situations before, this is not my first rodeo.) Also, please do not assume my agenda or stance on a subject just because I reverted you. My opinion on reviews or a film is irrelevant to basic citation and film article standards. [[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] ([[User talk:Trailblazer101#top|talk]]) 07:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{edit conflict}} Your reasoning is totally fabricated and contradicts itself. There is nothing wrong with using a source reporting early reactions to a film, which is clearly stated. [[User talk:Nyxaros|<small><span style="color:OrangeRed; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">ภץאคгöร</span></small>]] 07:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == |
|||
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. [[User talk:Nyxaros|<small><span style="color:OrangeRed; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">ภץאคгöร</span></small>]] 07:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:31, 26 December 2023
+rollback
Hi Trailblazer101,
After reviewing your request, I have added your account to the rollback group. Keep in mind these things when using rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Users should be informed (or warned) after their edits have been reverted. If warnings repeatedly don't help, WP:ANI is the default place to go. In cases of very clear ongoing intentional damage to the encyclopedia, WP:AIV can be used.
- Reverting someone's edits may confuse or upset them. Whenever other users message you on your talk page, please take the time to respond to their concerns; accountability is important. For most users who message you, the tone and quality of your answer will permanently influence their opinion about Wikipedia in general.
- Because the plain default rollback link does not provide any explanatory edit summary, it must not be used to revert good faith contributions, even if these contributions are disruptive. Your edit summaries are excellent; please don't let rollback stop you from writing them in most cases.
- Rollback may never be used to edit war, which you'll notice to be surprisingly tempting in genuine content disputes. Please especially keep the three-revert rule in mind. If you see others edit warring, please file a report at WP:ANEW. The most helpful essay I've ever seen is WP:DISCFAIL; it is especially important for those who review content regularly.
- If you encounter private information or threats of physical harm during your patrols, please quickly use Special:EmailUser/Oversight or Special:EmailUser/Emergency; ideally bookmark these pages now. See WP:OS and WP:EMERGENCY for details. If you're regularly patrolling recent changes, you will need both contacts sooner or later, and you'll be happy about the bookmarks.
- Use common sense.
To try rollback for the first time, you may like to make an edit to WP:Sandbox, and another one, and another one, and then revert the row with one click. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about rollback. Thank you for your time and work in cleaning up Wikipedia. Happy editing!
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Roger that. I thank you for your time, insight, and kind words. I have bookmarked the helpful links and will undergo experiments in a relative short time. I intend to maintain Wikipedia's policies and its accuracy in my ongoing efforts to keep it vandalism free, to the fullest extent we can achieve, Thank you, again, and I will be sure to contact you if I need to! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Production weekly
Hey, I'm pretty sure you've added production weekly as a source in the past, so I'm wondering how reliable they are for unannounced projects? Trying to decide if it's worth making a draft for a Wiccan series that they recently listed. -- ZooBlazertalk 02:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have found a lot of times that they compile information of projects from reliable trades, industry insiders, and the rumor mill, such as taking information from IMDb and other unreliable sites. We've had whole conversations about how reliable they are, which led some to believe they mainly are though some information can be questionable and met with skepticism. I would err on the side of caution regarding a Wiccan series, as I saw that was reported on by those Marvel insiders. As I no longer am subscribed to it, I cannot verify what the specifics are, though I would presume it is nothing concrete and probably for the best to hold off and wait and see if anything eventuates. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the latest issue also includes "Doctor Strange 3" and "Blade". I would be cautious with the former, as well, as to not jump the gun on anything, given there have been countless rumors of that one. The Blade listing could have some additional production information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know they tend to list projects only in development stages, but it feels weird to have listings added during the strikes right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Precisely. Though some developmental ideas can be had between producers, full on development stages are a hassle without certain crew. I find it best to remain skeptical of any development/production reports during the strikes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I know they tend to list projects only in development stages, but it feels weird to have listings added during the strikes right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the latest issue also includes "Doctor Strange 3" and "Blade". I would be cautious with the former, as well, as to not jump the gun on anything, given there have been countless rumors of that one. The Blade listing could have some additional production information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
User 189.120.75.234
Hey, so do you remember user 189.120.75.234 when you reverted their edits on Sony's Spider-Man Universe page for vandalism. They're still doing it to other pages. Doing the same thing over and over again. Here are their contributions of the pages they vandalized. I've been reverting their edits multiple times, but they're still doing the same thing over and over again I think it might be best to block them for a week because they've been doing non-stop. Mxhyn16 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- I do recall that. I have sent a report to WP:AIV to see what may be done. Thank you for the heads up. Always feel free to report any disruptive IPs there if they persistently vandalize and are likely to do so again imminently. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Ownership concerns
I am frankly concerned by your behavior, shared with a few other taskforce members, which are inconsistent and cliquish. Exercising judgment only against users outside of a handful of editors and calling behavior disruptive when it is tolerated within that group is not okay. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Espousing "ownership concerns" without any actual specific edits with valid issues is not a valid reason to persistently spread such allegations. The taskforce is built through consensus among the community, and ensuring said consensus is upheld and that content is discussed through the community. Just because your preferred changes have not been agreed upon is not a valid violation of the ownership policy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- That’s a really poor understanding of the situation. It has nothing to do with my preferred changes. It has to do with the fact that I am being impeded from making edits, even unrelated edits to what is being discussed, onto a page, even when consensus is reached such as it had been on the same page we’re editing now on the matter of the Defenders Saga shows’ names being included in the link. Yet when members within a select group, who very much do not reflect the consensus of the community as was shown in the RFC for Helstrom regarding how to treat that show, and who are merely acting according to their own agenda and biases, that same behavior which was impeding my edits is now considered disruptive. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot speak to the actions of other editors in terms of the Defenders Saga or their thoughts on any situation for that matter. I am speaking and acting on my own accord and autonomy. It was under my interpretation that comments made from Loeb and the trades on Helstrom's relationship to the MCU be included, as was discussed, and to note it was developed for the MCU alongside the Ghost Rider show which was standalone from SHIELD but the same character from it. If those have not been accounted for, I would suggest taking a moderate approach to implementing those with the other editors, rather than continuing to accuse those you seek to reach an agreement with, as that has lead these multiple discussions to seemingly go nowhere except each party trying to defend their own sides without trying to reach an agreement.
- There is a difference between a WP:COMMUNITYCONSENSUS and a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and there is how Wikipedia utilizes Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The Helstrom RfC, from my understanding, was a community consensus, while the multiple discussions among the taskforce editors reached a separate, local consensus, which can differ from a community consensus, akin to state vs federal laws. As I am a singular individual, I do not dictate what gets implemented on all these articles, nor does any one individual. Repeated inclusion of material (and removal of material attempting to reach a compromise) can be seen as disruptive, as the goal of these discussions is to lay everything out on the table and for editors to weigh their thoughts on material before major changes are made. Using a sandbox can help to convey your proposed changes, although a convincing rationale is good to have to back up your reasons "why" said changes are necessary and how.
- No one is preventing you from editing, as anyone can freely edit on here. It comes down to do the edits follow the local consensus, and if not, WP:BRD applies encouraging all parties to return to discussion in the hopes of reaching an agreement. That does not prevent improvements from being made to the articles in an attempt to help reach a prospected agreement, though repeated reverting of said attempts can be seen in bad faith by some. I for one know that no one owns or controls any of these articles, and it has never been my intention to convey that. You most recently removed an entire reliably sourced section without consensus to do so. That is disruptive editing, and is precisely a time when a return to discussion should be had before making such a major, potentially controversial change. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the Helstrom edit here. I haven’t tried to reimplement that since we began the I Am Groot discussion, which I am referring to. Perhaps you cannot answer for adamstom so I’ll take this up with him instead, but I reject the premise entirely that users aren’t trying to stop me from editing. Clearly, at least one user is. My only issue with you is the fact that you do not consider adamstom’s behavior disruptive, but when I do the exact same thing with IAG, you do. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am in no control over another person's edits. I have never provided what my perception of another taskforce member's edits may or may not be, so you are assuming based on what I have not responded to or have not looked at in depth. No response to one editor's contributions does not provide a conclusion on my interpretations of their edits in any regard. For I Am Groot, I and other editors already explained how past consensus came to that conclusion there, which is being upheld. I fail to see how adding a link in "See also" during a discussion on the shorts inclusion as a list entry, a matter of which has previously received consensus on, is an ownership violation as the See also and list entries tables are separate. Nor do I see why you are bringing this up to me, and not rather in the relevant discussions at the article, as whatever edits you are referring to from adam are not related to the I Am Groot discussion, nor am I involved with adam's contributions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- My edit, as I trust you can see in the edit summary, is based solely on the precedent that was implicitly accepted before with Adam. As I just said now, I will speak with him. ChimaFan12 (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I am in no control over another person's edits. I have never provided what my perception of another taskforce member's edits may or may not be, so you are assuming based on what I have not responded to or have not looked at in depth. No response to one editor's contributions does not provide a conclusion on my interpretations of their edits in any regard. For I Am Groot, I and other editors already explained how past consensus came to that conclusion there, which is being upheld. I fail to see how adding a link in "See also" during a discussion on the shorts inclusion as a list entry, a matter of which has previously received consensus on, is an ownership violation as the See also and list entries tables are separate. Nor do I see why you are bringing this up to me, and not rather in the relevant discussions at the article, as whatever edits you are referring to from adam are not related to the I Am Groot discussion, nor am I involved with adam's contributions. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I was not referring to the Helstrom edit here. I haven’t tried to reimplement that since we began the I Am Groot discussion, which I am referring to. Perhaps you cannot answer for adamstom so I’ll take this up with him instead, but I reject the premise entirely that users aren’t trying to stop me from editing. Clearly, at least one user is. My only issue with you is the fact that you do not consider adamstom’s behavior disruptive, but when I do the exact same thing with IAG, you do. ChimaFan12 (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- That’s a really poor understanding of the situation. It has nothing to do with my preferred changes. It has to do with the fact that I am being impeded from making edits, even unrelated edits to what is being discussed, onto a page, even when consensus is reached such as it had been on the same page we’re editing now on the matter of the Defenders Saga shows’ names being included in the link. Yet when members within a select group, who very much do not reflect the consensus of the community as was shown in the RFC for Helstrom regarding how to treat that show, and who are merely acting according to their own agenda and biases, that same behavior which was impeding my edits is now considered disruptive. ChimaFan12 (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, but you're wrong
I appreciated you trying to revert my edits (in good faith). However, I think it's best if we go off of what James Gunn, the head of the studio, has to say about when "DC Studios" 'begins'. [1] ScottSullivan01 (talk)
- I have seen that message from Gunn, and to put it into perspective, DC Studios-generated movies conceived under Gunn and Safran do begin with Legacy. However, DC Studios inherited everything from Fury of the Gods through Lost Kingdom, and is credited on those features. As such, we must follow that crediting. Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please show me where those are credited as "DC STUDIOS" productions. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- DC Studios was and is credited for these films in several reports, which are included in the articles. We cannot ignore that DC Studios had existed since Nov. 1 when it replaced DC Films. That would be rewriting history and WP:SYNTH. A studio not being credited on posters does not mean it was not involved, as Warners has never given an official credit to DC Films in the past. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please show me where those are credited as "DC STUDIOS" productions. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
User 189.120.75.234, again
Hey, so do you remember 189.120.75,234, when I asked you to block them. Well, they're doing the same thing again. They're not going to stop doing it. So I think it's best for them to block indefinitely. Otherwise, they're gonna keep making more disruptive edits on Wikipedia. Here are their recent contributions. Mxhyn16 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mxhyn16: I am not able to block editors as I am not an administrator. I would suggest raising your concerns and the edits of concern to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. They can handle more there than I can tend to. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The user who shall not be named
Their repeated talk page "revolts" and refusal to work with consensus (or lack thereof) is getting disruptive. We may need to consider taking this to ANI. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: I concur that this has been getting rather continually disruptive and unconstructive, making me question their collaborative efforts in building an encyclopedia and working together. I would get behind a report to ANI should that be viable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seconded. The fact that it's basically about the same few topics (mostly AitF and Helstrom) is getting very draining and the fact we just keep going around and around in circles after setting up RfCs on the matter, which all ran their course and didn't really change any current consensuses. It's getting more and more combative and like a WP:NOTHERE situation. Don't meant to put this on either of you, but I'm not as active at the moment if you'd like to start an ANI discussion about this. And to note, appreciate both your hard work editing throughout the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- You and Adamstom have been around editing MCU articles since way before any of us, so it's you who we should thank — for your service and leadership. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've mostly stayed out of the conversations, but have kept an eye on them. It's gotten kind of ridiculous seeing so many very similar topics being brought up over and over, and now we have similar discussions split between two talk pages. And honestly it's gotten hard to follow because the talk pages have become walls of text, which is why I had to adjust the auto archive. -- ZooBlazertalk 22:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Avengers assemble scene reception
Hey, if you have time, do you think you could see if you can find any good refs to add to the reception section? I've looked off and on and so far the best I've found is articles calling it one of the best in the MCU/Endgame/Infinity Saga, so I guess we can try to extract some commentary from those if need be. Unfortunately the Endgame reviews don't seem to mention the scene since it was a spoiler at the time. I think the reception is the last major section that needs expanded on the article unless there are other sections that can be added to the article that I haven't thought about. ZooBlazer 01:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'll see what I'll be able to find either this upcoming week/weekend or the next. I'm currently busy with other projects, though I'll definitely take a look when I can at what I can gather. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
All your recent large scale MCU edits have not gone unnoticed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC) |
- Why thank you! Right back at you! It has admittedly been a lot lately, though it is a real treat and my pleasure. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Magazine param
I know this is where ProveIt puts it, but we should be consistent with the other citation templates on each article and put website/publisher/newspaper/magazine or any synonym at the end, as Cite web currently does. If a template is already ordered that way, there's also no need to change it per MOS:VAR. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- @InfiniteNexus: Roger that. I do recall that being implemented in practice on some of the DC articles, I'll adjust the refs as needed and keep that in mind for further ref updates I'm planning. Appreciate the message! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
"Spider-Man: A New Universe" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Spider-Man: A New Universe has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Spider-Man: A New Universe until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Toad
There are photos of him on set Also the other person is Donald Pierce, however no article really mentions him Swordjetska (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- As I explained in my edit summary, those set photos are from the Daily Mirror, which is under the same umbrellas a Daily Mail and is not a reliable source, so we cannot use that information (even from sites which directly trace back and cite it). Without any reliable sources independently reporting on such information, we cannot incorporate it within the article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Trailblazer101, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
★Trekker (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
—El Millo (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Loki (TV series) episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Trailblazer101, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Merry!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024! | |
Hello Trailblazer101, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
JOEBRO64 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you, Trailblazer101. I hope you have a great 2024. Crafterstar (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom
Since you already breached WP:3RR (you reverted six times or something) while dealing with an IP, I advise you to at least not remove sourced info as you did here. We cannot change what the source reports for early reaction just because we don't like it and make stuff up to remove it. ภץאคгöร 07:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Please read my reason for the revert. If you want to add information from critics, please do so by citing their actual reviews, not just RT's editorial roundup. We already have RT's critical score details. Their roundup is not a standard. The IP reverts are a separate issue of disruption. (It was also only three reverts for the IP in a 24-hour period. That's not a violation. I've dealt with these situations before, this is not my first rodeo.) Also, please do not assume my agenda or stance on a subject just because I reverted you. My opinion on reviews or a film is irrelevant to basic citation and film article standards. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Your reasoning is totally fabricated and contradicts itself. There is nothing wrong with using a source reporting early reactions to a film, which is clearly stated. ภץאคгöร 07:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ภץאคгöร 07:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)