dablink notification message (see the FAQ) |
206.81.136.61 (talk) |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) |
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC) |
||
==Your reverts== |
|||
[[User:Adamstom.97|Adamstom.97]], you continue to revert edits done on the ''[[New Mutants (film)|New Mutants]]'' page without stating why you do so. [[User:DisneyMetalhead]] among others have made slight changes that make sense - complete ideas and use proper classifications. You cannot simply revert edits without stating your reasoning. If you disagree go to the talk-page. The edit I just reverted was simply due to the fact that a singular member of the X-Men is '''not''' in an context an "X-Man" as you keep reverting it to. X-Man is an actual character's name. Just like members of the Justice League are not "a Justice League" -- they're a member of the Justice League; so it is the same with the X-Men team.--[[Special:Contributions/206.81.136.61|206.81.136.61]] ([[User talk:206.81.136.61|talk]]) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:03, 12 October 2017
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I'm not sure why one has to click on "Tonight on Space" to see the weekly listings ... and why there isn't a direct URL. But if you do, and scroll to Friday it clearly says "Battle at the Bianary Stars". Or at least it does here in Toronto. Here's an image of what I see in Chrome. I wish I could figure out a better link. Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with the source for the episode 103/104 air dates. It's pretty clear. And it's what we all suspect, (and what I've heard on the street - which is of course unusable). Nfitz (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- If we wait, we should get a better source with a direct URL shortly. And the problem with 103 and 104 is that the dates alone are not enough to warrant showing the rows. We already have the dates there, but need some other info like the title or director before we reveal the row. This helps ensure that we don't just have a big table with not very much in it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why wait, the information is clear? Not sure why one needs title or director to reveal the row; can you direct me to a link for that rule? Also, I'm not sure which website is better than the station that broadcasts it first; the biggest media company in the nation. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on, I think I figured out the problem with the schedule. Are you in New Zealand? The Space website adjusts automatically, to show what time it airs in your computer's time zone. If I change the time zone on my computer from GMT-4 (North American Eastern Daylight Time) to GMT+12 (New Zealand Standard Time), it now shows the second episode airing at 2:30 PM on Monday September 25 (and repeating at 6:30 pm). Website is too smart for it's own good! Nfitz (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- If somebody needs instructions to find the information from the link provided, then it isn't a good source. And there is obviously issues going on with different time zones. Soon enough there will be a source that just gives the information normally, and we can use that. And I'm not sure if that rule is written anywhere, but it is definitely the common practice. If you take issue with it then perhaps bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- How is it complicated? Second episode premieres 21:30 GMT-4. Just check the title in whatever that is in your local time zone. It's not speculation. I've linked an image for anyone who can't figure it out - though surely people are used to changing time zones in their head in this day and age. But why does most even need to do this - it's a reference - most people aren't going to look at it. Often references aren't even on line ... and that's perfectly allowable! Too difficult to explain is how I got the episode 3 title - Context is for Kings :). I've never seen such drama over a simple confirmable episode title before - Trekkies! Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's complicated because when I click on the link, the information you are sourcing is not there! I think that is a pretty obvious problem. We are in WP:NORUSH anyway. It's not a big deal if it isn't up right at this moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not there if you look at 2:30 pm on Monday September 25th? What does it say then? There's no Discovery episodes listed all day? Perhaps some strange geoblock. No rush - but I don't think it's a big deal that it IS up either. It's verifiable and not WP:Crystal. Nfitz (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just get a standard news page, no mention of episode titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's something wrong with your browser? It's the entire week's TV listings for the station. (well 2 weeks really). On the top line of the website it says "Tonight on Space˅". When you press that, a grid of the entire weeks listings drops down; days on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis. Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in Canada, and I can't find the Tonight on Space link either. /tv doesn't display a schedule. Does this require Flash? Reach Out to the Truth 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Reach Out to the Truth: Yes, I think it's flash based. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm in Canada, and I can't find the Tonight on Space link either. /tv doesn't display a schedule. Does this require Flash? Reach Out to the Truth 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps there's something wrong with your browser? It's the entire week's TV listings for the station. (well 2 weeks really). On the top line of the website it says "Tonight on Space˅". When you press that, a grid of the entire weeks listings drops down; days on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis. Nfitz (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I just get a standard news page, no mention of episode titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's not there if you look at 2:30 pm on Monday September 25th? What does it say then? There's no Discovery episodes listed all day? Perhaps some strange geoblock. No rush - but I don't think it's a big deal that it IS up either. It's verifiable and not WP:Crystal. Nfitz (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's complicated because when I click on the link, the information you are sourcing is not there! I think that is a pretty obvious problem. We are in WP:NORUSH anyway. It's not a big deal if it isn't up right at this moment. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- How is it complicated? Second episode premieres 21:30 GMT-4. Just check the title in whatever that is in your local time zone. It's not speculation. I've linked an image for anyone who can't figure it out - though surely people are used to changing time zones in their head in this day and age. But why does most even need to do this - it's a reference - most people aren't going to look at it. Often references aren't even on line ... and that's perfectly allowable! Too difficult to explain is how I got the episode 3 title - Context is for Kings :). I've never seen such drama over a simple confirmable episode title before - Trekkies! Nfitz (talk) 07:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- If somebody needs instructions to find the information from the link provided, then it isn't a good source. And there is obviously issues going on with different time zones. Soon enough there will be a source that just gives the information normally, and we can use that. And I'm not sure if that rule is written anywhere, but it is definitely the common practice. If you take issue with it then perhaps bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
...and now we have a better source! Sometimes you just have to have a bit of patience in these situations. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- The better source, that finally kept it, was simply a blog that used the source I'd originally put in there as the proof, and you deleted. It's since changed to that very good source. What an odd microcosm of editing this is. I only jumped in because I was trying to figure out what the permanent timeslot it was airing in on Space. (Which I couldn't 100% peg down from the Internet, but ironically I walked past a transit shelter today with big poster saying 8 pm Sundays. Which is interesting, as as far as I can tell, CBS All Access doesn't release it until 8:30 pm Sundays; I'm not sure what they gain by holding onto it so late. But it's a new media, I don't fully have my head around.) And I noticed that Space and Tele Z had information not showing up. Hmm, and more now. Let's see how this flies ... :) Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Stop reverting. Now.
Your continued reverts on The Gifted (TV series) are going to get you blocked, and if you think thatuse the lame-ass excuse of WP:STATUSQUO is going to save you, it won't. At all. You have been reverted by two editors, and asked to contribute to discussion. That removes any justification for reverting.
I'd STRONGLY urge you to use the discussion page, because you aren't going to like what happens if you revert again. Don't test me on this, bud. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have very little patience for personal attacks on my own talk page, "bud". I have clearly already responded to you at the talk page discussion you started, so kindly direct your rage in that direction. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2017 (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. Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I did warn you. I wish you had chosen to discuss instead of trying to shoehorn your pet version back in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Going to AN3 seems like overkill, especially given that first revert was Saturday evening, the second revert was much later that night, the third and fourth reverts were Monday evening (at least for North America east coast). So 4 reverts in over 48 hours, but only 2 in first 47 hours, and only 2 in the last 41 hours. If you were arguing about a big issue in the article, maybe ... but you are pretty much arguing about whether to include a particular footnote or not (I'd certainly footnote such information if it I felt it should be there if in book format), and such a minor point it is. And you don't even disagree about the content of the text itself! Surely simply talking it out at talk is a better approach, and perhaps getting wider consensus. Sorry to butt in, but I was editing something else here, and I wondered if this was relating to a previous disagreement I was involved in (no).Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was about trying to edit in a fanboy crush, and it was pretty friggin' obvious that it was happening.
- Going to AN3 seems like overkill, especially given that first revert was Saturday evening, the second revert was much later that night, the third and fourth reverts were Monday evening (at least for North America east coast). So 4 reverts in over 48 hours, but only 2 in first 47 hours, and only 2 in the last 41 hours. If you were arguing about a big issue in the article, maybe ... but you are pretty much arguing about whether to include a particular footnote or not (I'd certainly footnote such information if it I felt it should be there if in book format), and such a minor point it is. And you don't even disagree about the content of the text itself! Surely simply talking it out at talk is a better approach, and perhaps getting wider consensus. Sorry to butt in, but I was editing something else here, and I wondered if this was relating to a previous disagreement I was involved in (no).Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Part II
The source does not say what you are trying to cherry-pick it to say. I've edited it to more accurately the sources? Disagree? Use the discussion page, as your Bold edit was reverted. Now discuss. If you keep reverting, I will have zero problem returning this discussion to the noticeboard. I am asking you, politely, to discuss instead of reverting. It is your choice how you wish to proceed; I am simply telling you that you've already got two strikes, as far as I am concerned. The racial comments do not help your cause. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have gone to the talk page, and I have not been racist, so again, what the hell are you on about? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- And I appreciate your return to discussion, Adamstom 9. The racist bit was that most readers might not be able to tell Fan Bingbing from Jamie Chung..."confused" was the word you used. Most people in films are recast in series - the examples of such would fill your talk page, and I am sure you can think of many of them. Maybe you didn't intend to suggest that the casual reader can't tell one Asian woman from another, but that is how it came across.
- The point is, (for whatever reason) you really wanted Fan Bingbing in the article, and you kinda twisted a lot of sources to make that happen. That's what the discussion is focusing on now. She didn't get the role because of Fan; she got it because of the same widening diversity of precursor series and movies that allowed both Chung and Fan to get cast in a series. My edit addresses that reality, reflected in the source that you yourself added. I'm happy to discuss this further with you in the article discussion, but I felt you had the right to know what the main point of the discussion was going to be. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I have responded at the talk page with an explanation for the comment that you perceived as racist. And stop with the "you really wanted Fan Bingbing in the article" nonsense. That is a childish and incorrect argument. If I didn't feel that the content should be in the article for a good reason then I wouldn't be arguing for it. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Le Vulcain 'Allo
Regarding your edit summary we should just wait for the episode to come out. See MOS:TV for more on these guidelines.
Actually I did read that, in particular WP:TVPLOT and also MOS:PLOT and Template:Episode list and I saw nothing about timing. Reading again, and digging deeper, the most recent relevant discussion I can find is WT:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Requesting clarification about episode synopses and copyrights which indicates that it's fine to be in advance, and even fine to quote a short one directly, if in advance. I don't see how what I did violates this. Or is there something more recent, or a guideline, I've missed. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Though now, given what exists in The Vulcan Hello since you reverted, the whole thing seem moot, so I have reverted. Whether the text and source should be different is another question, but I haven't seen another text source (perhaps it's in that infernal CBS video that is ironically geolocked so it won't play in Toronto). Nfitz (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the MOS explicitly discourages that practice somewhere, because it is something that is reverted in every TV article I watch, but I'm not entirely sure where it says it. Either way, it is another case of NORUSH where we will get the actual episode soon enough anyway. And thank you for bringing my attention to the separate episode article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that too. Normally I wouldn't bother, but as the only episode description I could come across was in French, and on a pretty obscure website for any anglophones, I thought I'd toss it in, given the obvious great interest (at least around here). Nfitz (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the MOS explicitly discourages that practice somewhere, because it is something that is reverted in every TV article I watch, but I'm not entirely sure where it says it. Either way, it is another case of NORUSH where we will get the actual episode soon enough anyway. And thank you for bringing my attention to the separate episode article. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources
Why did you rename sources on The Vulcan Hello? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Because most of them were already named like that in other articles, and also because it is a bit easier when the sources have recognisable/descriptive names when you are using them multiple times in an article. Nothing personal. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, nor did I take it personally. I don't know that I agree with your rationale but it's worth understanding at the very least. Thanks for improving the article. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Deadpool 2
My issue with the passage you reverted is that it almost is entirely based around announcements of things to come. For instance you could easily just put when the filming started once it does, or when the draft was completed and have a better artcle, In fact, when the draft is completed itself is probably irrelevant in the long run. --Deathawk (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I understand, but the development section is different from some of the other sections in that it is about tracking the development of the film over time (sometimes for years). So while we might later alter the filming section to say when filming actually took place, for example, it is still noteworthy when we learned of things in the development section. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- If this was a case where the shooting date was constantly changing or whatever, I could see the relevance, however the fact is that in 2016 someone said that it'd shoot in early 2017, it ended up shooting in 2017, that's just repetitive. Also it doesn't really say anything about the development, it just looks, from the outside like we, as editors jumped the gun, and we forgot to clean it up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- The whole point was to give an indication of how far along in production they were at that time. I would agree that it was a problem if we had been adding similar updates every week or so, which would just be silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- My main issue I guess is that we've been running into production sections that have been over done, where every little thing would be reported on and stuff and it would just be this insane hassle to read it, let alone edit it down to a manageable level. So my eye kinda twitched when it saw that whole passage. Your argument makes sense, but I would suggest that you may just want to edit it out anyway just to make it more concise, but that's just my opinion. --Deathawk (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- I do agree that a lot of production sections get out of hand, and I have personally been guilty of creating unnecessarily big production sections. I still think this specific instance is fine, but I'll be giving the whole section a c/e at some point which is always helped by hindsight in cutting some of these things, or removing some unnecessary weight. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- My main issue I guess is that we've been running into production sections that have been over done, where every little thing would be reported on and stuff and it would just be this insane hassle to read it, let alone edit it down to a manageable level. So my eye kinda twitched when it saw that whole passage. Your argument makes sense, but I would suggest that you may just want to edit it out anyway just to make it more concise, but that's just my opinion. --Deathawk (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- The whole point was to give an indication of how far along in production they were at that time. I would agree that it was a problem if we had been adding similar updates every week or so, which would just be silly. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- If this was a case where the shooting date was constantly changing or whatever, I could see the relevance, however the fact is that in 2016 someone said that it'd shoot in early 2017, it ended up shooting in 2017, that's just repetitive. Also it doesn't really say anything about the development, it just looks, from the outside like we, as editors jumped the gun, and we forgot to clean it up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
NYCC
Hey, just wanted to let you know I'll be at NYCC again this year. Hoping to attend the Runaways panel Friday night, and then AoS and Punisher on Saturday. As in previous years, I can assist in info clarification, if needed, per whatever is revealed at the panels. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't realise that was this week! I will keep a look out and try my best to help, but may be a bit busy this time. Enjoy! - adamstom97 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If you have a good camera try and get some good pics!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah it is! Honestly, knowing the planned panels and their lengths, we'll be getting the first episode(s) of Runaways on Friday, and most likely the first episode of Punisher on Saturday. And as rumors have been going around, most likely the release date of Punisher too if they don't just dead drop release it Saturday after the panel. That's just a bit of an idea for you guys to know what to expect. @TriiipleThreat: Sadly I'll only have my iPhone camera on me. Depending on where I'm able to get seats for all the panels if I get in to them, I'll see what pics I can get. I'll also try and get the C&D pop up "experience" that is happening outside the convention hall, and any installations the Marvel booth may have that are relevant to the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat: They did end up showing the first episode of Runaways tonight. I unfortunately was not able to get any cast pictures at the panel, but did get photos of the Runaways and Cloak & Dagger installations at the Con. I enjoyed the episode. If either of you wanted to know anything about it, I'll be happy to answer questions if I can remember. But I'm definitely excited for November 21 to arrive. And as you may or may not see from the article, I uploaded a new image, because the title card used at the end of the official trailer was the one from the episode, and I added additional EPs from my memory of the opening credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- I saw that you added some spoilerish stuff to the article just before, so I've decided to take it off my watchlist even though it is still a little way off, as I am quite excited to see it clean when it comes out. I'll still probably drop in with bits in pieces before then though. I have also taken off Ragnarok and the film lists since it is premiering today. I should be seeing it in a couple weeks. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Fictional characters
How is Michael Burnham not a fictional character? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- She is a fictional person, yes, but she is a real character. The character exists, even if the person does not. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any such thing as a "fictional character" then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose a character created for something that doesn't exist, like a fictional movie? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure just saying character is enough. The fictional feels redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- If I were to say, "Boy, that Kim Jong-Un is a real character", I would not be saying that he is a figment of someone's imagination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is a different use of the word "character". It's honestly not a big deal, it just bugs me as being wrong and unnecessary, kinda like people saying "ATM machine". - adamstom97 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- If I were to say, "Boy, that Kim Jong-Un is a real character", I would not be saying that he is a figment of someone's imagination. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- I suppose a character created for something that doesn't exist, like a fictional movie? I don't know. But I'm pretty sure just saying character is enough. The fictional feels redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any such thing as a "fictional character" then. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Filemover granted
Hello Adamstom.97. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 00:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gifted (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Your reverts
Adamstom.97, you continue to revert edits done on the New Mutants page without stating why you do so. User:DisneyMetalhead among others have made slight changes that make sense - complete ideas and use proper classifications. You cannot simply revert edits without stating your reasoning. If you disagree go to the talk-page. The edit I just reverted was simply due to the fact that a singular member of the X-Men is not in an context an "X-Man" as you keep reverting it to. X-Man is an actual character's name. Just like members of the Justice League are not "a Justice League" -- they're a member of the Justice League; so it is the same with the X-Men team.--206.81.136.61 (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)