Crazybob2014

While you are free to blank your talk page, doing so is considered proof that you have read and understand the notices and warnings you have received, so naturally there is an assumption that your edits from here on in will be up to par. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Stoopid Buddy Stooidos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how to delete a redirect to change the name of Psychonauts Two, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyoweston (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

have you tried cuting and pasting? Crazybob2014 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Psychonauts (video game series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It doesn't look as if this article/list serves any purpose which couldn't be served by a comment in Psychonauts about the others in the series.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. PamD 22:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

it has 3 games from double fine. i had to make it. Crazybob2014 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Crazybob2014,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Batman (2016 video game) for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. Take a look at our suggestions for essential content in short articles to learn what should be included.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Crazybob, please stop creating flimsy, unsourced stubs like this in live space. You need to familiarize yourself with our general notability guideline, and the first two things you should do before creating an article is figure out how to establish the subject's notability, and then dig up references that support the notability. Creating an article made up of an unsourced infobox isn't improving the project and only raises questions about your competence. You should also be well aware of WP:CRYSTAL by now. Creating an article about a future event like a video game release without providing references contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. I strongly suggest you go the Articles for Creation route, since I'm liable to consider interrupting your editing privileges if you continue to create these problematic stubs. And please stop removing speedy deletion templates. Your recourse when an article you create is nominated for deletion is to click "contest this speedy deletion" and leave a detailed argument on the talk page, not to remove the speedy deletion template. You may only remove a PROD from an article you create. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Crazybob2014,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged PlayStation Originals for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. D'SuperHero (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zoink Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I really don't know the best way to communicate to you that your article creation habits are problematic, but I'm going to give it one last shot in plain English before considering administrative sanctions to protect Wikipedia from your problematic edits. You don't seem to understand that all article subjects must meet either our general notability guideline, or our more subject-specific notability guidelines. The general notability guideline states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." As I have previously told you, when you create an article, the first things you need to do is establish that the subject is notable. You have failed to do that repeatedly.

• PlayStation Originals - was deleted because you failed to properly identify the subject of the article and establish notability. The only content you added was: a tiny unsourced infobox.
• Activision Blizzard Studios - had to be converted to a redirect, because you didn't submit anything more than one sentence, an infobox and a single reference.
• Rayman Adventures - had to be converted to a redirect, because you created a single sentence and an infobox but didn't bother to add references or establish notability.
• Amusement Park (film) - had to be converted to a redirect, because the only flesh you added was to create an unsourced infobox and some useless blank sections.
• Zombie Vikings - had to be converted to a redirect because again, it's just an infobox, and there's no indication of the subject's notability. You apparently didn't like my redirect, so you silently reverted, but by the time you were finished, the article was still nothing more than an infobox, and the notability issues I raised were ignored. That's disruptive.
• Batman (2016 video game) - had to be converted to a redirect, because again you left the article as an unsourced infobox.
• Psychonauts (video game series) - had to be converted to a redirect because again you created an unsourced infobox with no indication of notability. You also shouted, "i want no body deleting this!", which isn't helpful.

I don't have time to go through all your edits. The examples above are enough to warrant the suspension of your editing privileges, especially when compared to the history of warnings you've received on your talk page about the improper submission of unsourced content, which date back to October 2014. Per WP:CIR competence is required at Wikipedia. If you repeatedly demonstrate to the community that you don't understand that adding references is the most important thing you can do as an editor, or if you convince other users that despite numerous notices you have no concept of what notability is, or that there are basic content guidelines for articles, then you will ultimately be blocked. If you don't know how to add references (which, I strongly doubt, considering your time here, see WP:REFB. If you are unclear about an editing topic and you can't find the answer at WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. then go to the Wikipedia Help Desk and post a query. And, as I've mentioned before, if you get the hankering to create an article, please do not do it in live space. Instead, create it in your Sandbox, or in Draft space, and submit it through the Articles for Creation process where other editors can help guide your submission. If you continue down your existing path of hastily slapped together infoboxes, you will be blocked, because your sloppy editing is forcing other editors to clean up after you, which is extraordinarily disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

im sorry. (Crazybob2014 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC))Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of DC Extended Universe film actors page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ubisoft Motion Pictures, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kix. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rio (franchise) 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/Rio (franchise) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Mz7 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chris Williams and Don Hall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please don't remove reliable sources and replace the sourced content with unsourced content as you did in this edit. I don't know where you're getting this content from, but if it's the IMDb, you should read through WP:UGC, which explicitly says the IMDb is unreliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Excuse me, but Nickelodeon helped out with the last airbender movie. It said so in the poster. Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I started a talk page discussion. I will publicize it at WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • Thanks. Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Smurfs: The Lost Village, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• but those writers weren't credited in that movie. Only two have help them. Crazybob2014 (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You're right. The citation changed. It would help if you used better edit summaries. I'll try to be more careful to double-check the citations before reverting, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
    • Ok. But what about the editor of the film? He was credited in it too.
      • Sure, if you used an inline citation. He doesn't seem credited in the Hollywood.com source, and I can't see his name listed anywhere on the official website, either. I'm not sure where you found it. I did a Google search, and the only site that seems to report it is the IMDb, which is not a reliable source. Is his name listed in the trailer? I didn't watch every single second of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Crazybob2014. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Paranormal Action Squad, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with The Star (2017 film). Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Diff: [1] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Sorry. But the website was showed. Crazybob2014 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you are saying. Please don't remove AFD templates. It doesn't make the discussion go away. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• • http://www.thestarmovie.com this is the website i was talking about.

A film having a website is meaningless. We have notability criteria that must be met in order for an article to survive. I've explained this to you before. A website has nothing to with our notability criteria. Don't change things if you do not know you are doing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Where did this information come from? I don't see a Story by credit in the closing credits. I would appreciate an answer please. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I saw it at the end of the short. Every pixar short film based on the film has a story from the story writers.

OK, thanks for answering. I found it in the closing credits. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Crazybob2014 (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please don't add unsourced production companies, as you did in this edit. The source currently in the article does not mention Village Roadshow, and you need to cite a source to add it. This would include Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, or some other trade magazine. Please note that you can be blocked from editing if you persistently add unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• But Fist Fight is co-produced by Village Roadshow Pictures. It said so on the poster. Crazybob2014 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Variety doesn't list Village Roadshow, and they get their data directly from the studios. The poster does seem to have their name on it, but it could mean almost anything – sometimes companies are listed on posters because they are contractually obligated to appear, not because they had anything to do with the production. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm KatnissEverdeen. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lego Scooby-Doo! Haunted Hollywood, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 18:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

• excuse me but alan burnett was a co-producer in those movies, and i saw who edited the movies in the opening credits. Crazybob2014 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I rewatched the opening credits and saw you were right about Keef, but I'm still confused as to why you deleted Alan Burnett from the article, when you just confirmed he helped produce the movie. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 03:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

He was created as Co-Producer not a producer. Crazybob2014 (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand that part, but why remove him altogether when he's clearly involved in the movie? Wouldn't it be easier to just put a note saying he's a co-producer or create another co-producer field in the infobox rather than omitting him from the article altogether? Like this maybe? Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 03:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you should edited the infobox for the co-producer part. Crazybob2014 (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm still a bit confused, didn't I just do that? Or do you mean create a separate field? Just trying to make sure we're on the same page :) Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 04:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

IDK? Crazybob2014 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Umm ok? I don't care how it looks, I'm just trying to come to some sort of agreement with you, since you were obviously dissatisfied with how it looked before since you deleted Alan Burnett's name. We seem to have come to at least a partial consensus here so I guess let me know if you have any other concerns, otherwise I'll just assume you're satisfied with the current states of the articles. Cheers Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 05:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what's wrong with putting the writing credits in one column on the table. TVBuff90 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Fist Fight. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Look, I know that Village Roadshow is not on the source but the trailers of that movie never freaking lie! You need to put Village Roadshow back on that Fist Fight page and keep it like that god damn movie the house did! >:( Crazybob2014 (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Despicable Me 3, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

• look, Universal isn't a production company. Its a distribution of Illumination Entertainment! Im just trying to help out not to get in trouble! Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Ferdinand (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, List of characters in The Lego Movie, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article List of characters in The Lego Movie has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incomplete page, lack of content.

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. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on List of characters in The Lego Movie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xilam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daltons. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know that your mass revsions that just started violates the WP:COMMONNAME guideline. Haven't you ever wondered why the Pixar article is titled Pixar? It's because we should just use that title, and not pipe it in every occasion. Since I'm already counting 6 reverts, I'd kindly ask you to stop, apart from not even stating the revsion reason in your edit summaries. Lordtobi (✉) 16:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to fix the production company that its form Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios. (Crazybob2014 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC))Reply

"Pixar Animation Studios" is the long name of what we—and 99% of secondary press—commonly refer to as "Pixar", which is the optimal version to use on, well, just about every article. Yesterday, using AWB, I replaced some few hundered non-common occasions of Pixar Animation Studios and varies to just Pixar to conform the common name guideline. As you have reverted my edits on a total seven pages without any kind of comment or reasoning, I was hoping for a more elaborate response. Your above reply includes no information I asked about. Please be advised that "Pixar" is and will be the most guideline-conform version to use, wherefore my edits should not be revert without reason. In the near future, I will do another AWB run, which will again go over the pages you reverted me on—as they are in that list—and I hope not to see any further unreasoned reversions. Thanks. Lordtobi (✉) 16:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

You changed the default sort key for Brian Fee but at the same time also removed BLPPROD from that article. However, it is still completely unsourced, so I have restored the BLPPROD tag. To avoid confusion, I have also replaced {{BLP sources|date=April 2017}} with {{BLP unsourced|date=April 2017}}. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I like the br's but why do you delete them? Luigi1090 believes that the format is absolutely better with br. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmen Melendez (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Because i like it without the brs. It doesn't have to have them, i kinda fine without them. Crazybob2014 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

 Template:RWBY Chibi characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Did you seriously just add unsourced content and then revert me when I removed it? Didn't I give you a level 4 warning for adding unsourced content a little while ago? Are you trying to get yourself blocked? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nope. I saw those movies release date on them and you remove those films off the list because of your stupid unsourced rule. It doesn't need to be source or unsourced. Crazybob2014 (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Bob, I'm Dennis, an admin here. Let me just say that content should be sourced, and must be if it challenged. If it is challenged and you revert it back, you are editing disruptively and will be blocked. Adding material you "know is true" without sources is called WP:Original research. Plenty of articles have some of this, but once it is challenged, the burden is on you to find a source backing it up. There are millions of accounts on Wikipedia, we aren't going to just take your word for it because you claim to have seen the movie and "know" it is true. We don't publish truth, we publish verifiable facts, originally published in reliable sources. Again, if you keep doing this, you will be blocked. You might want to read WP:BRD, which is the gold standard for dispute resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I don't care because i want to help out this wiki and this is ridiculous. The Emoji Movie and The Star are from Columbia Pictures and they needed to be in the list of Columbia Pictures Films page. Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • You not caring is the problem. We are an encyclopedia, not a blog or just some random wiki. Wikipedia is the 6th largest website on the planet and the de facto encyclopedia for the English speaking world, so we have a high standard for verification. More importantly, the world doesn't revolved around you, so you have to get along with other people. You can't just act as if others don't matter. You can try adding the material on the talk page and seeing if others will find sources, or you can find real sources yourself then add to the article, but if you keep editing with this "I don't care" "I saw the movie" attitude, I will block you myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2018 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Universal is not a production company, it's just a distributor like the rest of the Illumination films. Crazybob2014 (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Your addition to Suburbicon has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I am getting very close to indefinitely blocking you on incompetence concerns. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Im very sorry about this. It wont happen again. Its just that no one put the plot of the movie in it. Crazybob2014 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19241 was submitted on Sep 14, 2017 23:31:20. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

NinjaRobotPirate! I want to have a Word with you!Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19245 was submitted on Sep 15, 2017 15:13:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2017 (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).

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Because i need to edited something with some source material.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:36, 15 September 2017 (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.

{{unblock|I want to gelp out the Wikipedia not to prevent damage. I wasn't going to do that. I was only trying to fix it.}}

Your appeal is moot as the block has expired. That said, your appeals don't exactly inspire confidence in your ability to edit Wikipedia constructively; expect your next block to be indefinite. MER-C 04:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 9 (2009 animated film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a file deletion tag from the file description page of a Wikipedia file without resolving the problem that the tag refers to, as you did at Lazer Team 2.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gen:Lock 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/Gen:Lock until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. IagoQnsi (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have reverted your edit restoring the page content at Camp Camp. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Camp determined that the page would be deleted, and so deleted it must remain. -IagoQnsi (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I dont want ypu to do that. We alway have sources on it.Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm sorry to say this, but what you want isn't what matters here. The community consensus is that the page is deleted, and unless something fundamentally changes (i.e. new significant reliable sources), it needs to stay deleted. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Camp Camp. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Restoring a page that was deleted by community consensus is considered vandalism. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Longhair\^talk 22:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Hugo Gittard has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Paprika (cartoon) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.xilam.com/portfolio/paprika-2/?lang=en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Uh... how long will this block be gone? Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term inability to follow policy, after a LOT of attempts to get you to do so (most recent: copyright violation in a new article, after being warned about it previously; but seriously, look at this talk page...).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

To answer your question in the preceeding section: This block is forever, unless you can convince an admin that you will start following policies. That's going to be a tough sell, looking at all the warnings on this page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

i will start following the policies but i cant talk to them when im blocked. Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

As the template clearly says, you can request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template. An uninvolved admin will review the request, and discuss with you if needed. My point is, "i will start following the policies" is probably not going to be believed, so you may very well not end up successful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

well what do i say to them? Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know; if it was up to me, you won't ever be unblocked because you have refused to follow policies for a long, long time, even with lots of people trying to tell you what you were doing wrong, and resulting in a whole lot of wasting of other people's time cleaning up after you. I do not believe you are going to change your behavior. I have no suggestions for what to say (hint: the request below is not going to work). I'm just answering your question: if you cannot convince the reviewing admin, this block is permanent. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (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).

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i know i may have broke a few rules but that is because i didn't listen to them. i was interested in making the wikipedia better but some people are making bad mistakes and no one is helping out. i was just only helping out, that's all.Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

You are blocked for copyright violation. That's not "helping out", that's putting the entire project in legal jeopardy. Yamla (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2017 (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.

Im not putting people in jeopardy. i didn't know. Crazybob2014 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You did know. You were warned about our copyright policy in August, and then violated it again in December. And this is after a history of other problematic edits. I'm starting to think we should apply a block on the grounds that you lack sufficient competence to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

im not lying. its the truth. i was busy on stuff that i have. i was going to make that papirka article to be like the zig and sharko one. Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, you ignore warnings on this page. That's fine. Now you've been blocked, it'll give you an opportunity to read each and every one of them, and to read and understand all of the policies we've been linking you to. Once you have done so, and not until you have done so, you are welcome to make an unblock request. You'll have to explain exactly what you understand about our copyright and fair-use policies that you didn't understand before, explain how you'll avoid violating them again, and explain how you'll behave differently in the future, so we can be sure you'll never again violate any of these policies. --Yamla (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2017 (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).

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I looked the policies you gave me and i think im starting to understand a little. i haven't read it when you guys blocked. So, if i make a mistake by disobeying the policies, then i will be blocked for a long time. i get on what you guys are saying and i should really pay attention to what i do so far. Crazybob2014 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

this is becoming yet another time sink. Based on your edit here: [2] I am declining this unblock review, and removing your ability to edit your talk page. This is either trolling, or a competence issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2017 (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.

This is nowhere near what I asked you to do. --Yamla (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please don't blank this notice. It's directly related to your block and will either help you fix your unblock request so it addresses the concerns raised, or show the next reviewing administrator that you couldn't be bothered. --Yamla (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19944 was submitted on Dec 04, 2017 22:05:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19960 was submitted on Dec 05, 2017 21:41:44. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC) Reply

 

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Crazybob2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22005 was submitted on Jul 07, 2018 20:01:19. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

UTRS appeal #69732 is open. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC) is closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

So is UTRS appeal #70043 JBW (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the WP:SO clock, noting a confirmed sockpuppet was blocked on September 8, 2023. -- ferret (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

✔ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Having consulted the blocking administrator, and with the support of another administrator, I am willing to unblock your account to give you another chance, so I have accepted UTRS appeal #87015. However, this unblock is based on the hope that you will not return to any of the problems which led to the block, and if you do repeat any of the problems, the block may be restored, without further warnings, so you will need to be very careful. It did seem in the past that you might not actually have understood what some of the issues were, in which case you may find it difficult, or even impossible, to avoid making the same mistakes again. The best I can say about that is that I hope after several years you now understand better than you did, so that you can avoid being blocked again. Best of luck with that. JBW (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ll be very careful about what I edit. Thank you, man. Crazybob2014 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have repeated a number of reverted edits by the IP address 64.56.14.75, which I see has been blocked because an administrator believed that it was you evading your block. Can you please make it clear for me; was the editing from that IP address you? JBW (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kinda. But I promise not to break the rules ever again. I'm sorry, man. I wanna restore my edits back after being blocked again by Bbb23. I didn't want to be like how I was before til I got caught in an edit war by a user messing with Ruby Gillman, Teenage Kraken. I didn't wanna be part of it to lay low but I had no choice. Please forgive me on my actions. Crazybob2014 (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did mentioned Bbb23 when I commented on my ticket approval. I've been waiting too long to wait another six months and I had to make it clear that it's time to stop with the block evasions and the sockpuppeting. I've been through a lot of standard offers and I wanna have a good reason why I should be back on the wikipedia after so long being out for a few years straight. I've waited six months last month and I wanted to make a goof ticket but got disapproved one time. I'm still sorry about this. Crazybob2014 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

So can I fix my profile now? I've haven't edited on my old profile in a long time. Crazybob2014 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you seriously suggesting that I was supposed to understand "And would you please tell User:Bbb23 that I didn’t mean to block evade anything on the wikipedia" as meaning "I evaded the block and Bbb23 blocked my IP address because of it, but I want you to ignore that and still unblock me anyway?"

I unblocked you on the basis of an unblock request which said, amongst other things, "people think I’m still Block evading", and again "people think I’m still block evading". (My emphasis.) You clearly set out to give the impression that you were not block-evading. I didn't just take one look at your unblock request and unblock your account, I put some time and work into checking the editing history, I consulted other administrators and waited for responses from them, and then considered their responses and wrote answers to them. I did all that to try to help you. Perhaps you can imagine how I feel, now that I know that you were just taking me for a ride. Or perhaps you can't. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether you can or not, because the unblock was based on the premise that you were being honest, and since you weren't, the unblock is void. You are unlikely to find another administrator as willing to consider unblocking you as I was. JBW (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would like to opine in the event of any further unblock requests. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wait, you again engaged in sockpuppetry one week before making a successful unblock request? Why would you do that?? InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Note: I posted this at User talk:BMA-Nation2020 the other day, but it's now buried beneath a Christmas tree of G13 notices, so I'll say it again here. For transparency and additional context in the event of future unblock requests, I should note that this user has posted numerous messages on my talk page on Commons over the past year. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply