Adamstom.97

Concern regarding Draft:Andor season 1

Hello, Adamstom.97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Andor season 1, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Section 31

Thank you for fixing that citation, I clearly didn't get it right.

It looks like Wikipedia does report on disproportionate dislikes (see: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, Ghostbusters (2016 film), Friday (Rebecca Black song), Sonic the Hedgehog (film)…), but if it's not notable enough for this article so be it.

Regarding cited sources, how are you determining which ones are acceptable to use? Serious question. I see Giant Freakin Robot cited on about 70 Wikipedia articles currently, many of them Trek-related, and of course I'm still prefacing its material as the author's opinion. It doesn't really seem different from the likes of ComicBook.com or Geeks WorldWide, which are included as citations, so what is it that's different? Redshirts Always Die is similarly cited on several Trek articles, I realize it's fairly "fansite-y," but it's not to be considered reliable yet TrekMovie.com, Trekkie Girls, Trek Sphere and Daily Star Trek News are? None of these sources have been deprecated, listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, or discussed on the RS Noticeboard from what I can see. Where is the consensus that they are reliable/unreliable? I don't want to go so far as to say it seems like cherry picking sources, but it does look very weird to read the article as it stands with hardly a mention of the trailer's generally very negative reception and instead just find example after another of obsequious praise. -- TanookiMike (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something is done at another article does not mean it is correct. I am making judgments on these sources based on my experience and understanding, most of the ones you listed are fan sites that do not meet journalistic standards and should be avoided. ComicBook.com is an exception to that, and I have found TrekMovie.com to be a good source in some instances (and it has been accepted in multiple GA reviews) but I would not use them for their reviews/opinions since it is still a Star Trek website and their views do not necessarily reflect general critical opinions. it does look very weird to read the article as it stands with hardly a mention of the trailer's generally very negative reception -- what are you basing this on? Negative comments online? That would fall under WP:USERG. We would need reliable sources to comment on these responses, but the majority of good sources that I found didn't do that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's done on a lot of them and a lot are are considered good articles, but okay, I'll defer to your judgment. I'm basing it on the fact the trailer got ratioed. But we can't talk about that, nor can we cite any of the sources that do. Are you trying to tell me it wasn't? It's like we're not allowed report on reality unless the acceptable sources do. Whatever. -- TanookiMike (talk) 14:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's like we're not allowed report on reality unless the acceptable sources do -- this is true. What matters on Wikipedia is not what an editor believes to be "reality", but what acceptable sources can support. Otherwise any editor could add anything to an article and claim that it is the truth. But even if there was a reliable source to support the trailer being "ratioed", that is still unlikely something that would get mentioned in the article because it falls under WP:USERG. There is no way of verifying that comments and likes/dislikes on a video are genuine and representative. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

issues

hi adamstom.97 i believe you and i may be conflicting with each other and i'd like to take an opportunity to call for a cease fire and get to the root of our issues. i'd like to resolve this issue between us before it gets ugly 89.240.222.124 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

sorry hope u dont mind the message 89.240.222.124 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

not a threat just me trying to make some corrections to my approach 89.240.222.124 (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I explained why your edit needed to be reverted, you ignored me and all my warnings and started an edit war instead. Your behaviour was disruptive and borderline vandalism. Please read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines so you know how people are expected to act here. When a change is reverted you are expected to go to the article's talk page to gain consensus for the change, not keep adding it in. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

well i did try to make amends if you but if u wanna behave like that that's your issue and i hope you get help for it. in the meantime while you're behaving like a troll, i'll be here trying to make the wikipeida community better if u ever wanna change your behavour for the better. if not oh well 89.240.222.124 (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

well proves i'm right 89.240.222.124 (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have added in some refs that support a longer filming schedule into the relevant articles. IP, there is no need for disruptive and unconstructive behavior like this when communicating with other contributors. Everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source and you can't just remove sourced content because you disagree with it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Norman Osborn

Norman Osborn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Adam. I've been interviewing experienced editors here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)