User talk:FilmandTVFan28

Old Revisions
January 2011-Present

Simon Chalk 2021

The reboot is actually real. It's on YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXnE6Og0SQ&feature=youtu.be

Archiving

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)

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

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

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)

RFPP

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)

Oh I i am not good at hyperlinking on here Kid Lucky is real thing here is the source i found

Here it is from Mediatoon.

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

I wasn’t

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)

@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)

You need to be careful! :-)

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)

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)

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

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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)

Just saw you in another edit war...

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)

The Swan Princess and 3RR

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

Range Block

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)

Removing block notices

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)

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