User talk:Amaree9

August 2026

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Ethics of care, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. please read our MOS sections on citations and external links Jackjd0 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding my reverts

Hello, I'd like to further explain why I reverted your additions to the pages Fancam and Diaspora since simply saying they were "essay-like" is a bit vague. I'm going to go over some parts I particularly did not like and explain why since I don't actually discourage you from editing, just be better.

From Fancam:

"There is an assumption that fancamming is just one part of a wider phenomenon of fan creativity that includes fan fiction, fan art, fan-made music videos ("vidding"), etc."

Calling it an "assumption" needs direct attribution, and addressing it as a "wider phenomenon" is a bit bizarre. The terms "vidding" and "etc." should be avoided altogether. There needs to be a clearer reason why the concept of a fancam is related to the things listed.

"Although in its early stages fan-made videos were shared by a limited number of fans, nowadays, owing to digital editing software and platforms for the distribution of videos, there are many more possibilities to create such types of media content. Therefore, YouTube, X (previously Twitter), TikTok, Instagram and other social media platforms are the tools that help fans produce and share fancams and contribute to the quick propagation of popular culture on the Internet."

This reads as an argumentative essay, especially the use of "Therefore" and referring to social media platforms as "tools" to "produce and share" on. One of the sources given for the entire statement ("Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture") is extremely lacking when it comes to supporting the actual text as well. This isn't even addressing that the sources you used are most focused on the concept of a fan-made music video rather than the type of video the article is meant to be about, though I would be an idiot to say it didn't deserve a good mention.

Someone suggested dragging you to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents over this, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt they you aren't using AI. Just remember the basic point about not writing like an essay nor writing like you have an argument to make. Wackistan (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest review

I would be glad to learn more editing tips from you Amaree9 (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for taking it well. Just wanted to say I re-added some of your content back to Diaspora but changed the wording slightly, it was more important to the topic than I thought, and for that I apologize.

Edit: I also want to clarify that I don't even think you're a bad writer, since I may have come off like that. Besides the things I mentioned, I've thought about and I don't have much of any issues with it. Wackistan (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Amaree9 (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)