User talk:ElectionMan24

May 2025

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Thomas & Friends: All Engines Go. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Opolito (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article literally states what I put. Go to the very bottom of the article, it's literally in the last paragraph before "About Mattel"

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250509865224/en/All-Aboard-for-80-Years-Thomas-Friends-Marks-Milestone-with-Never-Before-Seen-Pilot-Episode-and-Charity-Auction ElectionMan24 (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "With the announcement of a new Thomas & Friends project set to release in 2026 the All Engines Go reboot will end with its fourth series in 2025." That is not what the source says at all. The source says "In 2026, Thomas & Friends is ready for a thrilling new journey that is set to delight fans old and new.". So nothing at all about the All Engine Go reboot ending in 2025. It is also not an announcement of a new Thomas & Friends project. It is much more vague than that. It could, for example, refer to a fifth series of All Engines Go, or a YouTube video, or a blog post, or anything. Describing that as an announcement of a new series is a gross misrepresentation of one ambiguous line in a press release. Please read, and follow WP:OR and WP:V. Opolito (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring that I changed what I originally said? I realized that what I originally said was unsourced so I changed it to "the status of the All Engines Go reboot is unknown" and that is true. There have been no more seasons greenlit and Mattel has started making merchandise based on the original series again. Also what else am I supposed to call the 2026 thing? We don't know if its a new series, movie, or anything, so I just called it a project. It's obviously not new AEG seasons because (1 why would they put that in the article but not advertise the new AEG content coming out this year, (2 because of the other reasons stated above, and (3 because one of the writers of AEG said that he has not been brought on to write new episodes and has said it is very unlikely to be renewed. I did not describe it as an announcement of a new series, it is just some new project that we don't know anything about!

Sources:

New original series merchandise: https://www.instagram.com/p/DGzQcyHpKyp/

you can see a quick glimpse of it there. there are other higher quality images but they "aren't official" so you will probably reject it as a source

AEG writer saying series will likely not be renewed: https://thomas-and-friends-all-engines-go.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000172134/r/4400000000000558255

https://thomas-and-friends-all-engines-go.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000172134/r/4400000000000559142

Now you're probably going to say "well how do we know this is actually an AEG writer?" well (1 he has self-identified himself as writer Daniel Share-Strom and (2 one of the wiki admins requested confirmation that this was actually him, which you can find here: https://thomas-and-friends-all-engines-go.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:MrPickles1?threadId=4400000000000152800

Hopefully you reconsider this edit revert or at least make changes to what I stated. I feel this 2026 thing needs to be mentioned somewhere, so if you have a better way of mentioning it, please do. ElectionMan24 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above is the definition of original research. You clearly did not read the Wikipedia policy about that, as I asked above. You are not allowed to add your own original research to articles, under any circumstance. Also, fandom is not a reliable source and you cannot use it in articles. "This 2026 thing" is nowhere close to enough to add to any article. None of what you have above supports your edits in any way. Do not repeat them, or you will likely be blocked from editing. Opolito (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well buddy, hate to say it but what all I said in the original edit was sourced and not original research. I added these other sources (which I knew you'd refuse, common wikipedia user L) just to show you my thought process. Never thought about adding them to the page, and I left my edit "the status is unknown", which is true. I can't wait to come back to this in a year and everything I said was correct, because everything I said is factual and has sources, just not "reliable ones". Its funny, every time I've added a source in the past, it's been called "unreliable". Then, wait a few weeks and bam, a new "reliable" source is there with the same exact information. Wikipedia is supposed to be for facts, but I guess you guys don't want facts until much later then they are actually discovered. I'm done! Goodbye! ElectionMan24 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]