User talk:FilmandTVFan28

I saw in your edit summary that you didn't know how to archive so I though that maybe my talk page would be of your interest. That is- if you want to archive anyway. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 13:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. I continue to archive by adding sections to the archive. -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well not me but you can. lol reread it and it was off a bit -GoatLordServant (Talk) 14:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FilmandTVFan28. You can also enable bot archiving if you wish. Let me know if you want that set up. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a single IP address (or an indentifiable range of addresses) is disrupting multiple articles, it makes much more sense to block rather than protect. In this case, the recent disruption related to at least three of your reports was connected with a single IP, now blocked. Please consider using WP:AIV or WP:EWN for those cases. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is from Mediatoon.

https://www.mediatoon-distribution.com/en/catalog/273/kid-lucky/ Keatontarp (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t attacking that IP, 152.0.131.245. He’s the one that’s attacking me, he keeps making up lies saying I’m the one that’s causing all this, which I’m not. I was only trying to prevent him from vandalizing other articles, I was only fallowing the policy. You need to warn him not to attack me. 2600:1000:B002:11FC:49C:23C4:2CA6:C168 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmandTVFan28: can you remove this comment? He accusing you of “attacking him” even though that is False. 74.187.192.108 (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your report at WP:AIV, and upon looking at the article content, these edits definitely fall into being a content-related dispute. I've blocked the user for 24 hours for edit warring, and I need to warn you - this could've applied to you as well. Instead of blindly falling toward policy, and having known you for quite some time, I felt it was more appropriate to give you word of caution instead. You were blocked in 2019 for edit warring; I don't want to see you blocked for that a second time. :-)

When it comes to content-related matters like this, even if you know that you're right, don't repeatedly revert and edit war. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, ping the user to the discussion, message them on their talk page with a link to the discussion, and if they keep edit warring without discussing the matter with you, warn the user for edit warring (just like you did on their user talk page). If nothing comes of that, get help or report them to AN3. Just don't stop to their level and do what they're doing - even if you're right. It only adds more to the disruption rather than reducing it. ;-)

Anyways, I just wanted to message you and put this on your radar. Keep this in mind with future situations like this. Unless you're reverting vandalism, copyright violations, serious BLP violations, threats or other such matters, just assume that it probably falls into content-related matters that aren't exempt from 3RR.

Be careful! And have a good weekend! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I was blocked two times for edit warring. First was from February 2016 with one of The love pony's sockpuppets. The second was from last year with a unregistered user who didn't read a reliable source from BFI properly. I do get the point. As soon as you made this message, I went to the blocked user to remind him/her to add real reliable sources as soon as his/her block was over. Although that deed I made seemed unnecessary since it turns out that user was another sockpuppet of HarveyTeenager and was recently blocked indef. I'm making sure that won't happen to me. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for letting me know! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm sorry about the Elinor Wonders Why page. I don't know why they have the protection removed, but what it did is once again making way for these trolls to ruin the experience. And yep, that account was a suspected sockpuppet of that guy... again! If it was really them, then I'd say they won't ever leave. Just be careful with these kind of people, you'll might get yourself in trouble if you respond incorrectly. Ryotanada142 (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saw the stuff on The Swan Princess started up again today. If you haven't already asked, get semi-protection on that article. You're way past the 3RR limit and while I agree with your points, what's being added isn't vandalism or anything else that would be a revert exception. It's just someone (or multiple people) being really dumb. Get the article semi'd and force them to the talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I already requested page protection on that article and my last edit on it will be my last for the next 24 hours. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  FilmandTVFan28, honestly, don't. You're over 3RR right now - I can't even report this to the noticeboard because there's a chance you'd end up blocked as well (hopefully really small chance!). I'm watching and will leave the IP's edit up until semi protection is added and then remove their edit again. Ravensfire (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's honestly the best way to deal with an IP like this. Realize they can hop IP's so an edit-war is useless. When you see that they just aren't going to give up or actually discuss, get the semi-protection and force them down that route. It sucks because IP's can push way beyond 3RR without a care and we can't, but long-term, it will work. Just frustrating at times, trust me, I get it, but not worth a block. Ravensfire (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another range block is needed which is 2a02:c7f:1438:a300:40ba:4204:7366:bc41/64. Has the same behavior as 2A02:C7F:143B:E300:0:0:0:0/64 and 2A02:C7F:14DD:D500:0:0:0:0/64 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.62.31 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FilmandTVFan28, just regarding this revert, there's no prohibition on blocked editors removing block notices, only on removing declined unblock requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reboot is actually real. It's on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXnE6Og0SQ&feature=youtu.be 2603:6080:A740:C00:857B:E366:2CDA:9FA2 (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I took the liberty of removing the auto-archiving settings from /Archive 1, because they don't work there. If you'd like threads on this page to be automatically archived to there, let me know, and I can help you set that up. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FilmandTVFan28 Please improve this article for me, multiple issues of it have been listed as found by Butlerblog. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's a tall order, but I'll see what I can do when I feel like it. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about this film? I've never seen it. Just ran across it while doing RCP. That IP has some excellent English skills... Do you understand what's going on here? A few that sound rather strange, though the film is rather strange. So, maybe I shouldn't have changed anything?

Estelle Harris as Mrs. Duckstein: when Mrs. Duckstein wants to have celebrated balloons for celebration she’s with her friend called Mr. Duckstein Mrs. Duckstein she’s with her friends Yvette, Queer Duck, Melissa when mrs. Duckstein she’s with her friend called grandma when Mrs. Duckstein she’s breaking some dishes.

• have celebrated balloons for celebration?

Mark Hamill as a hot dog vendor who with his friend, Peccary went to baseball for 30 bucks. A hot dog vendor with his friend called Openly Gator wants to hot dog

• Peccary went to baseball for 30 bucks - should this be a baseball game?

I removed some duplicate voice cast. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all familiar with Queer Duck. The only adult animated shows I've been focusing were the earliest ones like The Flintstone. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Users 2602:AE:127F:E00:5B9:7298:5CA0:548 and 2602:AE:127F:E00:C9BC:4A61:C804:129E, both from a similar range and possibly the same person, have been vandalizing the page "The Nutcracker Prince" for a few days now, adding distributors not to be added as per WP:FILMDIST. I have sent notices to both users requesting them not to do so, but 2602:AE:127F:E00:5B9:7298:5CA0:548 has been commenting on the notices on their talk page, being abusive towards me. As seen in 2602:AE:127F:E00:5B9:7298:5CA0:548's edit summaries, none of the users are assuming good faith. I tried reverting their edits but, keeping in mind WP:3RR, I have not reverted an edit made by 2602:AE:127F:E00:5B9:7298:5CA0:548 on the aforementioned page. I was thinking of reporting this to the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring, but I am new to making a report for the administrators' noticeboard, so I scrapped it. I saw you thanked me for an edit on "The Nutcracker Prince", so I thought I could take this issue to you. I hope you can handle it. Thanks in advance. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 09:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. But we better not celebrate too soon. That user will try to come back and resume. We must be fully prepared. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a funny feeling that person is Nate Speed himself. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing myself. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the protection got over and an IP user did the same thing yet again. Fortunately I reverted the user's edits but we need to stay alert. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 03:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the IP is evading their block through a user. Despite me reverting the user's edits, they revert it back. FloorMadeOuttaFloor ^{(Leave me a message•Changes I have made)} 05:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate I think I may have accidentally reverted one of your reverts, was not intentional!! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 10:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection isn't an optimal solution when the disruption is only coming from a single address or range, as in this case. For those kind of issues, WP:AIV is a better venue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Fred Rogers Productions. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He left a message on my talk page. Thought he was someone else at first. wizzito | say hello! 00:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're back, at User:TheIslandFan. Just went to AIV wizzito | say hello! 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a feeling we might need to go to SPI and request a WP:Sleeper check because of the use of registered socks minutes after being blocked. wizzito | say hello! 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have an SPI page? wizzito | say hello! 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• TheIslandFan has been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for block evasion, but I'd like some more information. FilmandTVFan, you mentioned the "Magic School Bus vandal" at AIV, but I have no idea who that is, or the behavioral connection with NewFan1502. Could you assume I know nothing and elaborate a bit? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who kept hijacking the article on The Magic School Bus (TV series) and tried to replace the info and image with Pinky, Elmyra & the Brain just because none of us believe his false information about the show not also being Canadian when it actually is. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "someone" (meaning what named acccount or IP(s)), and how did you connect that series to NewFan1502?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address 107.242.125.31 based in Austin, Texas that is currently blocked. The edit pattern is very identical. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the Magic School Bus, some people on Wikipedia (not trying to be rude) are always thinking every show and upcoming ones is always American just because it was co-produced with an American studio.—VictorRocks (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello & thank you for all your good work! It would be helpful if an edit like this had an edit summary to motivate the removal of what looks quite OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to include the image on The More You Know (TV programming block) now. It was originally bot-removed for lack of a valid fair-use rationale on the image page. I've added the FUR (its use-case and FUR justification is identical to that of The More You Know), so now it's appropriate.

I'll go and add the image back in (I dunno about the other edits the IP was making as part of that), but if you think I got it wrong, go ahead and revert me. TJRC (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FilmandTVFan28,

If you come across page creations by an obvious sockpuppet, please just tag them for speedy deletion, CSD G5 rather than opening up a week-long discussion which will result in the same outcome. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FilmandTVFan28, I just want to say thank you for reverting the vandalized edits from the Magic School Bus page. Speaking of television, I found some possible air dates for the Get Ed page, another show produced by Red Rover Studios and Jetix Animation Concepts.--VictorRocks (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flash Gordon (1996 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ron Rubin. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Murder One (film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, some short mentions at most it seems.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder One (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder One (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Fram (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The username board is for accounts that have issues with their usernames, not their behaviour. There's no problem with User:LBthewolf's name itself. Secretlondon (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there are some useful ip contributions but semi-protected the page (for three months) since there seems to be a bunch of mucking on a constant basis on this page. Can you suggest a better solution? BusterD (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with reference to your editing at Frankenstein Conquers the World, just a reminder that there are only a small number of exemptions to 3rr per WP:3RRNO. These including reverting obvious vandalism, and reverting edits but a banned user in violation of their ban or socks of a blocked or banned user. It does not include reverting edits just because the editor has already violated 3RR, nor for that matter reverting the edits of someone who is now blocked but wasn't when they made their edits. If your edits do not qualify for an exemption then you should not be reverting in the same article 4 times (or more) in a 24 hour period. I do not believe your reverts qualified for any 3RR exemption, there's no clear indication the editor is banned or is a sock. And it does not seem to be obvious vandalism since the editor had some weird explanation for their edits. I'd note that although it was suggested as an April fools joke, the edit war started before it was April anywhere in the world. With the editor now indefinitely blocked I don't think it makes any sense to self-revert although can't speak for any admin who may review the 3RR complaint which is technically still open. However I'd suggest in the future you take more care as 3RR is supposed to be treated as a hard line and you breach it at your peril. I see no reason why it was particularly urgent, so it was simplest to leave it for someone else to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't appreciate how that troll chose to copy edit summaries (manly mine) instead of properly responding nor how he/she didn't properly report a user. I do fully understand. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FilmandTVFan28, it's nice to meet you. My name is Eloise. I'm working on a draft for René Rechtman, the CEO and founder of Moonbug Entertainment, and was hoping you might take a look given your interest in this topic. You also recently reverted some vandalism on the Cocomelon page- thanks for that! I have a COI and am therefore not publishing the article myself, but if you think it's ready to be included, please go ahead and move it to mainspace. Thanks again, Eloise Moonbug (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very sneaking suspicion that person is in fact Nate Speed. IanDBeacon (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear so. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this IP is a sock or not? If they are a sock, then of which user? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this address 2600:387:B:982:0:0:0:0/64. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FilmandTVFan28, would you mind providing a citation for Special:Diff/1128012277? The material seems to have been repeatedly challenged, so WP:BURDEN should apply, but there's no inline citation yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That IP user kept removing that bit just because everyone didn't let him/her add the last name of the fictional character. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bother SPI with that one, I've just blocked it. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Great Mouse Detective § Voice cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should also give warnings at the offender's talk page whenever you revert an nonconstructive edit instead of just reverting it. Thanks, Carpimaps (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Dinosaur Train characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dinosaur Train characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Artem.G (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the IP from the Dominican Republic - Special:Contributions/179.52.223.99, keeps editing, please revert the edits to Funimation and add a warning to the talk page. Thank you. -174.91.109.231 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping again here. I saw your warning on their current IP talk page, but I left a much sterner message as well [1]. This has been going on for a very long time (years, literally) with several IP's blocked for a year or more. They revert again and this needs to go to WP:ANI to get the new IP blocked for a short time and the page semi-protected for an extended period of time. I'm betting ANI will be needed. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnnddd ANI topic created. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The Swan Princess vandal

. Ravensfire (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)][reply]

Is film affinity a reliable or reputable source for edits on Wikipedia. B.R. Esquivel 06:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEBO1986 (talk • contribs)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 21:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have opened an SPI where you were involved. Feel free to comment if required. – Callmemirela 🍁 22:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

listen man I apologize for changing content for Little Bill I do you know that little bill is based on Bill Cosby's son so I guess I won't change it anymore I guess I'll just tell people Jereminx (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention) for persistently reporting usernames that did not have any issue, despite warnings.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FilmandTVFan28. I warned you back in July for a long-term pattern [loads slowly] of reports where there was no username issue. I see that you've made four reports since then, most recently of Josias evans today, and all four have had the same issue. I trust that this is just a mixup on your part, clicking the wrong Twinkle button or something, but the issue goes back years, and you've been warned and queried multiple times, so I don't see an option other than a partial block from UAA. If you have a better idea, please let me know. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really was a mixup. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I get that. But it's a mixup you've made dozens of times, and each time sucks up a bit of admin resources as we try to figure out what your report means. Again, if you have a better idea of how we can avoid this kind of mixup without a partial block, I'm all ears. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That user I reported was vandalizing, especially on Sonic the Hedgehog, and was clearly not here to contribute. It was meant for somewhere else. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to make such reports at AIV or AN/I in the future. Although please include some more detail. It is not obvious to a reviewing admin whether a change to a cast list is constructive or non-contructive, nor whether it is so non-constructive as to merit a no-warning block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How could I since I have time limits? FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time limits? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My new schedule doesn't let me have free time for Wikipedia. Doesn't matter anymore. As of this moment, I don't feel like doing anything on Wikipedia right now or any day. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to continue editing, but I will not be filing reports on vandals anymore. I no longer have the energy or confidence to do so. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted some of the IP address' edits on your behalf after reporting it due to disruption. 64andtim ^{💬 📚} 19:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your effort. I just wish I had not lost my confidence and energy to report vandals. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about 68.188.119.166 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making a report about 181.222.83.159 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you've reverted an edit by User:ILOVEROSATHESEAOTTER. While I agree with the revert as they did not provide a source, I was wondering about your edit summary. You said that the user was engaging in block evasion. Do you have any proof? If they were doing this, why didn't you do anything about it? Also, why didn't you warn the user? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 15:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like Youcantspellcockadewithoutcock was trying to come back under a different name. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Why didn't you file a report at SPI about it? —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 19:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to report anymore. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there.

Feel free to respond whenever you like, but I saw you edited out on the Roary The Racing Car article the mention of the series airing Universal Kids/PBS Kids Sprout. While it hasn't aired on Universal Kids, it aired on Sprout for a few years, though I can't say for how long, only that it started in 2009. Why did you remove it, if it was accurate? Triviatronic9000 (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it aired on Sprout, it doesn't mean it's a Sprout Original Series. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FilmandTVFan28. I noticed the back-and-forth at User talk:Cyphoidbomb and thought I'd share with you that the IP that is removing the {{Not around}} line from Cyphoidbomb's talk page, is from same /40 range of the IP that originally added the line there back in April 2023 (see [2]). This editor's hobby since April seems to be tracking Wikipedians who are no longer around (see Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians‎) and one of the things they do is to add the {{Not around}} template to the user_talk pages of editors who haven't edited in a while and then removing it when they return.

I am with you in normally objecting to an editor modifying someone else's talk page, but, in this case, it is more like a self-revert. I don't really care one way or the other, so I won't get mixed up in the edit war, but thought I'd share this with you in case you weren't already aware. Cheers and happy editing.  — Archer (t·c) 01:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't stand letting someone else take full control of his/her talk page. That user helped out a lot in the past decade and I wanted to return the favor. Of course it is my final favor since I am considering to stop editing on Wikipedia after letting my temper and flu get the better of me. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Disney logo. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I needed a break from Wikipedia anyway. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for your information, I already knew that I went past three reverts. That's why I had to stop and take a longer break from Wikipedia before you decided to block me. The only way you could have known what my plan was if you had just ask. Nobody does that these days, not even once. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FilmandTVFan28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I never meant to violate the three revert rule. My temper and flu got the better of me. When I realized that I did over three, I already decided to stop and and take a long break from Wikipedia. I will continue to stop reverting after the third time no matter what. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to read WP:EDITWAR first. If you keep finding yourself even having to consider the three revert rule, then you are in the habit of edit warring. You've been here long enough (and blocked enough in the past) to know that, I'd' hope. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I did already read that and I don't have that habit anymore. I'll prove it after tomorrow. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t believe the same user who’s vandalised the page before by adding my content (which I’ve told the user who sockpuppets IPs thousands of times that my shows are fan-made and I have stated this in them loads of times) and clogging up the edit summary. Good thing it’s protected again. Luigitehplumber (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've seen many persistent users, but not as childish as that IP hopper. We'll need to be fully prepared once protection has expired. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he says they're for me ("For Harry Humble", with Harry Humble being my full name). The user doesn't fool me aroundf one bit, and I am just sick and tired of seeing my content on Wikipedia and them refusing to listen. Luigitehplumber (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent threats by Nate are not by him, in fact I don’t think he’s even been on Wikipedia for ages. They’re from someone named SobySobea, who has been copying his behaviour. Thought I clear up the confusion for you a little bit. The accounts all have edits based on Romanian TV channels, and Soby hails from Romania. That’s how I can tell it’s her. Luigitehplumber (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although, what she says could very well be debated because she is nothing more than an internet troll who takes advantage of (mainly) Fandom's low-security measures and attacks other media-based wikis of any kind... I believe her to just be ABigBlueWorld in disguise, but admins on other wikis have debated that as well. I just want them off the internet for good because they're annoying. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never supported Fandom, but I understand the pain everyone there is suffering. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride § Changes to the plot and lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added "Fluppy Dogs" to the list of Disney Theatrical Animated Films, because it is 45 minutes long. I understand that it was developed as a pilot to a series, but it is feature-length, going by the standards set on wikipedia's pages on "Feature Films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film and "Lists of animated films" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_animated_films . I was careful to check the standard already set before adding it. For this reason, I'm going to undo your change. I am happy to discuss if there are reasons why you think the above standards do not apply to this list. Thanks :) Jellybeangrrl (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]