User talk:69.255.225.138

January 2022

Hello, I'm Wizzito. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Flash animated television series without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. wizzito | say hello! 00:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2022

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Help! I was blocked for editing Wikipedia for no reason! I was trying to add more information and sources to some pages. Why do you think I was vandalizing? I was not vandalizing Wikipedia. I was going to edit today but I was blocked for no apparent reason! I didn't do nothing wrong with this website. It is not necessary to block me for no reason. Can you please unblock me?

Decline reason:

It does not appear that this IP is blocked. Are you using a VPN? What message are you seeing when you try to edit? Could you paste the message you see when you try to edit into another unblock request? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was going to edit another wikipedia page because I found some false information but I'm blocked for no reason. I'm not using a VPN. Anytime I edit something, this error message keeps popping up. Can you please unblock me and the problem will be fixed? I wasn't vandalizing Wikipedia. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You forgot to paste the message you see when you try to edit. Note, in general, this happens because people were using a VPN but have now disabled it. That's great, no problem, but you have to wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

May 2022

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Billy West. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I sourced his birth date from the 1952 in animation page and on IMDb. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Love's Labours Lost in Space. DonIago (talk) 21:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It is true that David X. Cohen provided the voice of a computer that says "This is Vergon 6". However he is not credited in the credits. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Anthology of Interest II, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed Kath Soucie from the guest stars page as she is a recurring voice actor on Futurama. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Star of the Backstage. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I sourced Elisabeth Kiernan Averick from the credits of The Star of the Backstage. It even says so in The Simpsons (season 33) page. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can you please unblock me on Wikipedia? I wasn't vandalizing pages on purpose. I was trying to fix mistakes. But you blocked me for some reason. Vandalizing is like editing George Washington's page and say that he is alive. That's not true. That IS vandalizing. However if I just edit 1 thing, I get blocked for vandalizing. That's NOT vandalizing. So can you please unblock me now? I was going to edit another page.

Decline reason:

Please demonstrate your understanding by telling us how your prior edits were disruptive, what you will do differently, and what edits you want to make. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

You may want to review the various warnings you received on this page. You weren't blocked for vandalism, but for disruptive editing. Two different things. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed all of the various warnings I received on this page. Can you please unblock me now? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so no, I can't. Even if I could though, you apparently didn't read the guide to appealing blocks that you were linked to based on your request. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Not an admin, however....

....it might be in your best interest to create an account. You may have trying to fix things, but maybe it was someone else who was disruptively editing. If you can prove to the admins that you can constructively edit without that fact of other people using the same IP address (it happens) that might be disruptively editing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to make an account but can you please tell an admin to actually unblock me? I wasn't doing this on purpose. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You won't get confused with others if you (after you are unblocked) create an account, and an account is more private than an IP. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For the final time, can you please unblock me now please? :( 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to edit another page so badly! Please unblock me and the problem we be solved? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you please unblock me now? There is a mistake in the 2022 in animation page! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the result of your formal unblock request? Because you haven't responded in a way that suggests that you have. Continuing to simply ask to be unblocked could result in your ability to post to your Talk page being revoked, because you're not engaging with the issue. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry that I keep begging you to unblock me. I did explain what I did with these edits so why can't you unblock me? I promise I won't vandalize or disrupt too many edits. I will source my edits for real, ok? I wasn't trying to disrupt the edits on purpose. I just want my block to expire. I'm sorry I was disrupting edits. I was just fixing the pages just the way it is.69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is the last time I'm saying this. I was blocked from editing Wikipedia because it says I did disruptive edits. I was just trying to fix mistakes spotted on some pages. I wasn't vandalizing and I was not trying to remove stuff on purpose. I have to sometimes remove stuff because there is a mistake or the source was wrong. I won't cause any more damage or disruption by editing like 100 pages a day. Maybe editing less can be a good idea so that way, I won't be blocked for disruptive edits again. And finally, I will make useful contributions instead like adding more sources. This is the last time I'm saying this. Can you positively please unblock me now that I have a reason? Thank you and have a nice day.

Decline reason:

Block has expired. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Can you unblock me now?

Decline reason:

Additional open unblock requests will in no way speed the process here up, and instead may be viewed as disruptive. If you have a comment, or question to make, please do so without using the {{unblock}} formatting as you did below. SQL^{Query Me!} 17:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Pushing the admins by sending another unblock request while you already have one pending seems likely to be counterproductive. Patience is a virtue, and all... DonIago (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to remove declined unblock requests on an active block. If you do that again, you're talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It is getting close to May 31st. Can you please unblock me early? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that in this edit to 1977 in animation, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jp×g 00:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed Jim Conroy because he was actually born in 1970, not 1977. There was a mistake in Wikipedia. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Film Roman, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Toasy Cake Fan 100 (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just making the page better by sorting it out better. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Hey man im josh. I noticed that in this edit to Invader Zim, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you put back my change of this page? All of the other Nickelodeon shows doesn't mention the animation studio that they subcontract for, ok? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Invader Zim. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I already mentioned the changes that I did, please don't block me again. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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 1994 in animation, you may be blocked from editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed Jak Knight because he was actually born in 1993, not 1994. Thank you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted my revert. But in the future, please use edit summaries, especially when you're making significant content removals. Why you're removing something may be obvious to you, but it may not be to others. Happy editing! XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 03:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

August 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2022 in animation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have made many unconstructive edits. This is your only warning before you are reported to AIV. Inspector Eevee (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was adding the infamous HBO Max purge which did affect animation because many animation fans criticized this change and having popular shows removed. I wasn't vandalizing so please don't block me again. Thank you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

September 2022

Don't make a huge lists as you did to 1963 in animation. Just add notable items. If every one was added, the page would be unreadable. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Simpsons (season 33). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I was messing around with this page. There is a glitch that if you go to the "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 21-present)" page, it shows you the ENTIRE page, it was supposed to show ONLY the episode titles. I need help fixing it. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That's cause you broke it. I've reverted your edits and fixed it for you. If you wanna mess around with that stuff make an account and do it in your sandbox. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked again.

Help! I got blocked by Wikipedia again. It claims that I vandalized but I was just using a VPN in the UK. The ip address was 146.70.0.0/16 although mine is 69.255.225.138. Can you please unblock me now? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 69.255.225.138. Not 146.70.0.0/16. I was just using my VPN to browse streaming services from around the world. I was going to edit, but I was blocked due to using this IP. Can you please unblock me? I wasn't vandalizing. It was because of my VPN. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you were a registered user I would be referring you to make an IPBE request. But you're not. Most VPNs make use of known proxies around the world, many of which we block for long periods of time because they can and have been used to facilitate abuse of editing privileges. We can't help you as it stands if you insist on using your VPN. We know you're editing in good faith, but ... that by itself doesn't clear this bar, I'm afraid. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Although you can't really help me, can you please delete this IP (146.70.0.0/16.) from Wikipedia? That way, the problem will be solved. Can you please do this? Editing on Microsoft Edge is way harder than editing on Chrome. Delete this IP and we're good OK? Thanks and try your best.

Decline reason:

This unblock request is nonsense. It's unclear to me if you don't understand how IP addresses work, how Wikipedia works, or are deliberately attempting to waste our time. Yamla (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not trying to waste my time. Although this IP is not blocked, I can't get rid of the Proxy IP. Can you please try to find a way to disable this IP back to the IP I have before? I disabled my proxy but nothing works.69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As discussed. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Once you disable your proxy, it takes a full 24 hours for the block to clear. Please stop posting these unblock requests. We will not be getting rid of the block on the other IP address range. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I will wait. Does that mean I need to edit in another website for now until tomorrow?

You may do whatever you wish with your own time while you wait the 24 hours. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at List of Disenchantment episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If you continue to add the content without any consensus and through edit-warring, you will be blocked again, as you were earlier this week. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I keep editing this page. The reason I keep denying the changes is because I took a LONG time to find the storyboard artists sourced from the credits. I did this with other Groening shows like The Simpsons and Futurama. Even if you going to revert the changes for Disenchantment, PLEASE don't remove the storyboards section for The Simpsons and Futurama. I took FOREVER to find all of these credits. Thank you and please don't block me. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I recognize the effort you spent finding them, but the credits simply have no merit, and overstuff the episodes tables. You can see a discussion about the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#"Storyboard artists/animation directors" in episode lists. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I see you've continued. Expect an imminent report against your edit warring. Cheers! -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please make a new rule that people ARE allowed to include storyboard artists for primetime shows too? How come people are only allowed to add the storyboard artists primary for children's shows only? I get because it was credited in the title cards, but please. It's just not fair that adding storyboard artists are only allowed for children's shows while most adult/primetime shows gets NONE. I'm not trying to add more columns. I promise that I will not add stuff like overseas studios, composers, art directors, assistant directors, supervising directors, etc. Although it makes sense that it appears in the end credits, that doesn't that if you actually make this as a new rule, people have the right to add storyboards for most primetime shows. So please, can you make this a new rule and the problem will be solved. I'm not trying to start an edit war or messing around with Wikipedia, I'm very passionate about animation. I'm sorry I keep doing this. Can you talk to your collaborators and make storyboard artists a new rule for cartoons? Please don't be upset. Thank you and good night. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This IP address is still repeatedly adding storyboard by and choose to ignore the discussion and this past discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 33#"Storyboard" parameters. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I keep ignoring that discussion. I already know that storyboard artists are only allowed for the opening credits, but now you taking it too far. I already told you not to remove the storyboards section for The Simpsons, but you did anyways! Although its understandable, some storyboard artists later were important to the animation industry. For example, Dan Povenmire's first work was the Simpsons and he was a character layout artist and storyboard artist for some episodes. If he didn't work on that show, he would've never met Jeff "Swampy" Marsh, nor created Phineas and Ferb. So you see although I get the point, the storyboard artists can be important for newcomers if they want to know who storyboarded the episode because websites like IMDB have some false information and that's my problem. The only way to know the storyboard artists that isn't IMDB, is through wikipedia but you only allowed that is for shows made by Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Disney (although most of their shows credited their directors, writers and storyboard artists all in the END credits for example Kim Possible, Gravity Falls, etc.). You are just saying that adding storyboard artists for primetime shows are prohibited, but children's shows are allowed. Now that's not fair. I did read your discussion but look, I took a long time to find all of these credits, especially The Simpsons and Family Guy. So can you please restore my edits for The Simpsons, Family Guy, Futurama, Bob's Burgers and The Great North? Although I get the point, I wasn't trying to add everything like composers, overseas studios, supervising directors, etc. But storyboard artists are important. Some of them later got their own shows (Dana Terrace, Matt Braly, Dan Povenmire, etc.). Can you please think about restoring my changes since I took forever on doing this? Thank you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The specific discussions are important because you choose to ignore the general consensus to not include them. As said repeatedly by multiple editors, you have no consensus to include them which you choose to ignore repeatedly. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your problem with storyboard artists anyway? Do you hate storyboard artists? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with them at all. It is not my fault that you failed to acknowledge the general consensus to not include them. Your attitude of "my way or the highway" is not going to work on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Currently I'm writing a reason why storyboard artists should be added back in the discussion board. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Good on you. Then you need to gain an agreement and consensus to add then. Until them, you need to remove them. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to reach an agreement with you guys especially YoungForever but nothing is working. I'm trying my best right now, okay? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Because you don't have a consensus, and your attitude of "it must remain" is extremely conflicting. Remove the content, and if you gain a consensus to include them, then you can restore the content. That's how Wikipedia works; it's resolution system is not "it remains while we argue". -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How could I gain a consensus? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

By arguing with guideline and policy based reasoning. However, while everyone is encouraged to edit Wikipedia, not all edits are accepted and agreed upon, and not everything that everyone wants to add is kept. So you need to understand that since the general consensus of the Television WikiProject is against adding the storyboard artists, it's likely that your content won't make it through. Arguing it further will likely only make editors stand against your edits even more firmly. And this is nothing personal, but as I said, not everything needs to be added. I would recommend you add the content to other sites such as the Wikias, as they have a lot looser acceptance for edits. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: This IP address is still adding storyboard credits. I don't think they are planning to stop. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANEW or WP:ANI? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure, you might want to ask Alex 21. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely ANEW. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add them back for the first 33 seasons, but I already told you NOT to revert my changes for Season 34. Come on man! It's been weeks I haven't did that. Can you ask Alex 21 to restore my changes? Not to mention when you remove the storyboard credits for the first 33 seasons, the writing and directed credits looks squished up (specifically seasons 5, 7, 8 and 9). When I was adding those credits, I adjusted the writing and directing credits by sorting them better. But because you revert my changes, it is no longer organized. I'm not trying to fight about this topic again nor bothering you. So can you please think about restoring my changes for Season 34, not to mention the previous 33 seasons? If someone says yes, then I won't talk about it anymore, ok? Have a good night! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. You're edit-warring and just won't drop the stick, you're becoming a nuisance now. Time to end this with a block. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

No, please don't block me. I'm not vandalizing! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But if we just let him do it, then he might become less of a nuisance to us. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But I didn't vandalize ANY pages. I got blocked last time because A: I used a VPN. And B: I edited over 100 articles in one day. Stop saying I'm just a goofball that edits extra parameters. I'm an actually human being. Not a robot. If you block me, I can't edit any mistakes in other pages and I can't keep up to date on adding which people had died for 2022 in animation not to mention adding more animators and actors for the births section in most in animation pages. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That's not how editing works. By ignoring consensus and editors telling them not to implement their edits, they're vandalizing. They have no consensus and are edit-warring over their edits despite clearly being told to stop. A report will be filed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

One more thing, since you reverted my changes, you also removed the short summaries sourced from The Futon Critic. It IS a reliable source so why you keep reverting my changes?! I'm not trying to get too mad but please, I don't want to fight with you guys again. If you keep doing this, then I'm going to make a official account so you guys can stop bothering me! If you block me, I CAN'T edit wikipedia for WEEKS, not days! I will be bored if you do that and just do other stuff like go outside. But what if I read an article, find a mistake, trying to fix it, and then BOOM! I got blocked. One more thing before I go, How could I abide consensus even if all the users disagree with me? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't have a consensus for your edits, and that means don't make those edits. Not every edit on Wikipedia is approved or accepted. If you're blocked, you won't be allowed an account, and we can report that as well. This is entirely your own fault; you can argue your case once we file a report. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever You've been more involved with this editor and their warring; do you have a list of articles that are relevant to their edit-warring, so I can pull the diffs and submit it? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: These dates back to between September 14–16 though.

• The Great North
• The Simpsons (season 1)
• The Simpsons (season 2)
• The Simpsons (season 3)
• The Simpsons (season 4)
• The Simpsons (season 5)
• The Simpsons (season 6)
• The Simpsons (season 7)
• The Simpsons (season 8)
• The Simpsons (season 9)
• The Simpsons (season 10)
• The Simpsons (season 11)
• The Simpsons (season 12)
• The Simpsons (season 13)
• The Simpsons (season 14)
• The Simpsons (season 15)
• The Simpsons (season 16)
• The Simpsons (season 18)
• The Simpsons (season 19)
• The Simpsons (season 20)
• The Simpsons (season 21)
• The Simpsons (season 22)
• The Simpsons (season 23)

— YoungForever^(talk) 04:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you please don't submit a report on blocking me? I'm going to calm down and forget about all this. I will make actual edits. Because if you block me, then I have nothing to do with this website for WEEKS. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, isn't that unfortunate. You should've thought about that in the first place. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You know what, adding storyboard artists for primetime shows is stupid! I'm sorry I started this problem. I was originally only going to do it with Futurama, but then I thought it was a good idea to add those artists for The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc. But now I get the point. The only way I could've did it is that I could've ask users if storyboard artists are allowed. You guys say no, I won't do it anymore. But one of these days, can you speak to some of these users to allow people to add them back? Not now, since we tried everything and nothing worked. Maybe in a year or something? But you guys are right, I should move on. Thank you for helping me. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, why people are allowed to add storyboard credits for shows like The Owl House or SpongeBob SquarePants but not for shows like The Simpsons? Not to mention, all storyboard credits for Gravity Falls has been removed although the writers and directors were also credited at the end credits. If I can't add storyboard parameters, where could I do it? I can't do Wikia or Wikisimpsons since when you edit the episode templates to include them, its not going to work. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This will be the last question and then I will actually finally move on from this topic. I wasn't meant to talk about it again, I was just about to edit a different page before any of this happened. I'm sorry I keep doing this to you guys. Can you guys forgive me? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

why people are allowed to add storyboard credits for shows like The Owl House or SpongeBob SquarePants but not for shows like The Simpsons?

I too would like an answer to this. I don't think storyboard artists should be included in any list of episodes. The argument that it's okay to include them if they're listed in the opening credits isn't a strong one, or we'd be including the likes of "co-executive producer". Barry Wom (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, you are right that shows like The Simpsons put their storyboard artists at the end credits but why you prohibit me to do it? No matter if the storyboard artists are credited in the opening and closing credits, what if people want to look at the list of episodes to know which storyboard artists were involved in that specific episode and not using websites like IMDB. Some examples of children's shows that have the writers, storyboard artists and directors credited in the credits since their are no title cards or opening credits are most of the Disney Television Animation shows, they credit their crew at the end (exceptions being Phineas and Ferb, The Owl House, Amphibia and The Ghost and Molly McGee), some shows made by Nick Jr. (such as Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go!), they also credit their crew at the end. I know I already get the point but look, I promise you not to add co-executive producer because you can find that in the main page, or storyboard revisionists (which I didn't add anyway) and from now on, I won't add additional storyboard artist credits. Like when I was fixing the page for Duckman, some users were confused on which storyboard artists did the actual storyboard and which ones did additionals. This only applied with the first season. So you are saying that if you won't let me put storyboard artists in primetime shows, does that mean I have to remove them for shows like SpongeBob? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't care if board artists are added or not, but if you want an explanation as to why I think they can be allowed on shows like SpongeBob, here's why:

Shows like SpongeBob, Adventure Time, Regular Show, etc. are board-driven (meaning a group of writers write a 3-4 page outline of an episode, then pass it on to the board artists who, in addition to storyboarding, write the script/dialogue based on the outline), whereas shows like The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, etc. are script-driven (meaning a writer writes the script, and then the board artists storyboard the episode based on the script. In other words, they are just any other artist). Now, some people also insist on adding the people who write the outline as well and clog up the tables, but that's another discussion for another day. Hope that helps. TheHonestEditor (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying storyboard driven is fine, but script driven isn't? I know that their a big difference, but why script driven isn't allowed? I get that storyboard driven means that they write an outline and pass it around with the storyboard artists, while script driven shows has people drawing the storyboard based on the script. So why can't we allow script driven shows to include storyboard artists? I think now I know why you keep reverting my changes. Since their a big difference. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The only edit of yours I reverted was the Duckman episode list, and even then I only removed the additional storyboard credits. I was just simply offering you, in my opinion, a better explanation on when to include them then just simply "only in the opening credits." TheHonestEditor (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

So if you allowed me to add them for Duckman, why can't I do the same with The Simpsons and rest of the shows I edited? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

TheHonestEditor: thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware that on some shows the storyboard artists were major contributors to the script and dialogue. Question is -- how does one determine if a show is script or board driven? For example which category does Duckman fall under? Barry Wom (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Duckman is a script-driven show but TheHonestEditor made me an offer to keep the storyboard artists intact (the only thing he removed is the additional storyboard artists in season 1). But if TheHonestEditor can make an offer, am I allowed to add them back for the other shows? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 26 September 2022 (UTC)

If Duckman is a script-driven show then there's no rationale for including the storyboard artists. Now removed. Barry Wom (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

But TheHonestEditor actually made an offer to keep it. Not to mention aside from season 1, I didn't add the storyboard artists in the first place. Can you just restore them please? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make you an offer to keep them. The only thing I "offered" was the explanation between script-driven and board-driven shows above.

As for telling if a show is script or board driven, there are interviews and behind-the-scenes stuff out there where the show's staff do confirm if their show is script-driven or board-driven. However, in the event there isn't, my general rule of thumb is if the storyboard artists are also the writers, it's probably board-driven, though there are some exceptions. The Cartoon Network show Clarence, for instance, is board-driven but the storyboard artists are not credited as writers because, if I had to guess, the outlines are a lot more detailed compared to other board-driven shows. At least according to a blog post from the show's head writer. TheHonestEditor (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, you clearly do not have the consensus to add the storyboard credits on the episode tables. You cannot do what you want and ignore the established consensus. If you continue to add them, you will get block as this is considered to be disruptive editing. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, Storyboard artists will be strictly only for storyboard-driven shows and if its credited in the opening credits. I can just look up the storyboard artists in the internet instead. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverting My Edits on Duckman Season 1

Look, I'm not gonna get you involved in another edit war over on the Duckman episode list. You seem to have enough of those warnings as is, so I'll just leave this here.

Zhenia is a typical nickname associated with Evgeni, so I was basically saying the same thing, Steve is often short for Stephen or Stephan, again saying the same thing, and Tom is typically short for Thomas. I'm confused as to how that makes their credits inconsistent or how it wasn't their "real" names when I was basically saying the same thing, and most readers would probably tell that they are the same people? TheHonestEditor (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, although Steve Ressel was consistentaly credited in seasons 2-4, some episodes credit him as "Stephen" or "Stephan" which is a bit inconsistent. I know its actually the same crew member but I was just trying to have the crew members consistent to the other seasons. Side note: Can I restore the storyboard credits for The Simpsons except I will not include additional storyboard artists this time (specifically since seasons 31-33, additional storyboards were involved). 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I don't really care if they get included or not. If you want my opinion, my answer is no but let's be honest, even if I said yes, you should know by now they would get reverted anyway.

But on another side note, I appreciate you trying to make the article more readable. However, and I'm not trying to be harsh, if it gets to a point where you have to include eleven line breaks (see Season 3, Episode 1 of Duckman to know what I'm referring to) to make it more readable and include the storyboard artists, then in my opinion, it's probably best to just not include them. By doing that, you're stretching out the episode tables and making them way longer then they reasonably should be. On top of that, when you originally put in the additional storyboards, it was difficult to determine who was credited for doing the storyboard and who was credited for doing additional work on it because every artist was put on a new line. I'm not trying to be mean, but I can't think of any valid reason to include that many line breaks just to make content more readable. TheHonestEditor (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's okay I will fix the episodes page now, if only I could do the restore the storyboard artists for The Simpsons (coincidentally, animation was originally provided by Klasky Csupo, the same company that produced Duckman). 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Editing The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy and Evil con carne

Hi You gotta change your edits back since you missed them up if you don’t I’m gonna banned forever plz change it now 104.148.248.204 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I merged Season 1 of Billy and Mandy and Evil Con Carne into Grim & Evil since all of the segments in these seasons were ORIGINALLY made for Grim & Evil before reairing in 2003. This includes the new segments that didn't air on Grim & Evil, but aired on the separate shows. The airdates for the new segments that didn't air on Grim & Evil is included in the Grim & Evil page. I won't remove all of the other seasons since they were made after the split. Thank you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Formatting Episode Tables

I'm not here to be mean, nor revert any of your edits. I just simply have some concerns with how you've been formatting episode tables lately.

You've said before that you reorganize the tables to look more readable, and that the credits looked squished up. If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you mean by that? Because the tables looked more or less fine, on my end at least, before you reorganized them. TheHonestEditor (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I was meant to say that sometimes if the episode has two or more writers, that's why I keep saying its squished up, that's all that I have to say. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. A fair amount of the tables you edited did not even have column widths specified, meaning they should fill up to fit the maximum size of your screen. Unless your screen is extremely small, I don't understand how having even two staff members can make the tables look compressed? TheHonestEditor (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I only did it because compression can make the multiple writers be not organized. But that's all that I have to say. I wasn't vandalizing. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say you were vandalizing. I'm just asking why you keep inserting line break after line break when the tables didn't look that compressed to begin with, at least on my side of things. TheHonestEditor (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright thanks for your information. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

TheHonestEditor was asking why you're adding line breaks. "Thank you" is not an answer; the line breaks are unnecessary formatting. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It's just its better organized for episodes that have multiple writers and directors. I didn't add the storyboard artists back for any script-driven shows. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Literally nobody is asking you about storyboard artists in this discussion. How is it better organized, when the tables are designed to already fit in that information? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to go to bed but even if you say that its already fit in that information, if the episode has a lot of writers, that can be a problem since its going to be compressed. See The Simpsons episode "22 Short Films About Springfield" to see for yourself, that episode has ELEVEN WRITERS. However it's already organized. But if you can see The Simpsons Movie page in the list of episodes, that movie also has ELEVEN WRITERS except not all of the writers fit. So that's why I keep reorganizing multiple writers and directors. I'm not trying to make it worse, he was just asking about that. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

They do fit, because they just go onto another line. Now you've forced a table row to be eleven lines long. And what on Earth is up with "The Simpsons Movie" table? It's also eleven lines deep with a MASSIVE date column that's 90% empty whitespace? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Originally, I didn't originally edit this page. I only edited to include the board artists until you told me to remove it. So maybe if there is 11 or more writers, I won't line break it. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

True, but that's just two particular instances of having a lot of people credited. Most of the episodes tend to credit 1-2 people. Sometimes a little more, but that's not always the case. TheHonestEditor (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I know you didn't. And for the ones you didn't remove (whether you just legitimately forgot to do it or not), I went ahead and removed them. I'm talking more specifically about other tables you've edited like Billy & Mandy or The Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat. Unless you're operating on a much smaller screen then I am, I don't really think you need as many line breaks as you think you do. TheHonestEditor (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I edited Billy and Mandy not just because I reformatted the multiple writers, storyboard artists and directors, but I MERGED the first seasons of Billy and Mandy and Evil Con Carne into the list of Grim & Evil episode since ALL segments in the first seasons were made for that show originally before splitting in 2003. Billy and Mandy got 5 more seasons after that while Evil only got 1 new season and got cancelled. For Felix the Cat, storyboard artists are NOT credited so instead I separated the story into a different column because all episodes of the first season has a story credit alongside a written by credit. This doesn't affect season 2 since they are no story credits in season 2, only the writer and director. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I meant, because I'm not referring to you merging tables or adding columns. Once again, I'm not trying to be harsh, but it might be a good idea to not use the same column widths across every single table you edit. I appreciate your consistency but that's probably something you shouldn't be very consistent with. On top of that, some of them don't even make any sense. Why are the title and air date columns just as wide, if not wider, than the directors/writers? The titles (usually) are not super long and the air dates especially are not long. TheHonestEditor (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but it feels like you just keep disagreeing about every edit I do. I just preferred reformatting the multiple writers and directors. Although I left some edits alone if there is like 11 writers in the episode. Have a good day. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's almost like a lot of your edits are not in line with WP:TV standards, and we're trying to bring this up with you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insist that every edit you make is inherently bad; I'm just confused as to why you think inserting a line break after every single person makes the content more "readable?" TheHonestEditor (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I added a line break for multiple writers and directors, not to mention sometimes storyboard artists. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need one line break if there's 2 people credited, you don't need 2 line breaks if there's 3 people credited, you don't need 3 if there's 4 people, you don't need 4 if there's 5 people, you don't need 5 if there's 6 people, etc. That's too much! How does doing that make the content more organized and readable? The only thing you're accomplishing by doing that is making the tables needlessly long. TheHonestEditor (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to say that you broke the formatting for the table on The Simpsons (season 33) and The Simpsons (season 34) which caused a mess on the pages they're transcluded onto, and then you ask if someone could fix it when you broke it in the first place. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting it but if I line break, I'm only going to do if there is like 2, 3 or 4 people. Up to 5 until 12, that's too much. The reason I keep doing the line break is because since nobody put a specific number for the number for the earlier seasons, the tables look very inconsistent if you go to the list of episodes. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you should probably be using it when there's more people credited, not less. If you want my opinion on when to use line breaks, try doing one line break for every three people credited (i.e. 1-3 writers/directors/board artists = no line breaks, 4-6 people = one line break, 7-9 people = two line breaks, etc.) That way, for users with smaller screens, you're not completely crowding up space (keyword: completely), and, for users with bigger screens, you're not making the tables needlessly long. TheHonestEditor (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

So, it's been two and half weeks, and for some reason this conversation is still relevant. You still keep adding line breaks to every single person, which I have repeatedly told you to stop doing that. I hate to be mean, but how do you misunderstand my argument with line breaks this badly? Read my statement above, that is my opinion on when you should use them. Lastly, if you have a problem with space, make the column widths wider (in other words, go above the number 15). By the way, just simply saying "Please don't revert my edits, I worked really hard on them," is not gonna make me not revert your edits. You need to provide an actual reason why they should be kept that way, and none of your arguments make any sense or fall in line with WP:TV standards. That's why I keep reverting your edits. TheHonestEditor (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I DO have a reason why that I want you to keep my edits. First of all aside line-breaking the multiple writers (that isn't above 11), I also bolded the Note section for some episodes, since in my opinion doesn't look good if it's not bolded. Second of all for the first 20 seasons of The Simpsons, all of the synopsis were sourced from the episode guide books. I was removing them since the episodes past season 20 never even have an episode guide book. Third of all even if I understand what are you saying, in my opinion the line breaking makes more readable on the computer. Here is the thing, if you look at the episode tables for seasons 5, 7 and 33, the directors and writers part on the table is very condensed meaning that if they have like a long last name, it will not fit the table. So that's why added specific numbers for the first 34 seasons. Not because I'm being mean to you but the fact is that aside line-breaking, I was also doing some minor edits. Since you have to revert all of them, all of my other work (include removing citations, guest stars and fixing mistakes) will be gone thanks to you. I'm not trying to mean but can you please leave them alone? I now have a valid reason why. Have a nice day. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I did not add back in any of the citations you removed, I only touched the table widths and content. My problem with your edits is not that you edit differently than me. My problem is that a lot of your edits to the table widths and content do not make any sense or fall in line with WP:TV standards. You cannot keep insisting to keep your changes solely because "it just looks better." You generally have to follow the standards and consensus on Wikipedia, and if you are gonna go against them, that is not a valid reason to keep them in and of itself. As for the writers looking condensed, I ask you once again, what do you mean by that? If you don't add column widths, they should fill out to fit the maximum size of your screen. TheHonestEditor (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well for example, if a writer or director has a long name, then the name is going to be condensed for example "Steven
Dean Moore". 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

For example:

Steven

Dean Moore 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That is what it looks like when the writer or director column if it gets condensed. I do have a question. If I create an account for Wikipedia right now, could you trust me more with my changes? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Then why can't you make the column wider so that it doesn't look condensed? As for your other question, that's not relevant to this discussion. TheHonestEditor (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok. One more thing, if you have to revert these edits again can you at least keep all of the other edits intact? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to bolding the Note section and the citations, then sure. TheHonestEditor (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Also one more thing, when there is two or more writers/directors etc., can you use the "&" symbol from now on. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:AMP, you generally should not be using the ampersand (&) and the word "and" interchangeably. Although, to be fair, there are some shows that do use the two interchangeably or use neither of them. TheHonestEditor (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

1958 in animation

Please stop adding so many roles to the list entries. Two or three are sufficient. Even if they have "only" six roles you do not have to list all six. It is not a comprehensive list of roles, the rest of them are in the individual's own article. ... discospinster _talk 19:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add all of their roles. And also, I was only meant to add Eddy Houchins, not have a conversation on trimming. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to The Simpsons (season 2), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to add an edit summary. I was just making a few adjustments like remove the references to the episode guide books. I wasn't vandalizing. Thanks. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Simpsons (season 2), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Don't remove citations without giving a valid reason. Adakiko (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  The reason why I got rid of the citations for the episode guide books is because in my opinion, they weren't needed anymore. Episodes past season 20 doesn't have an episode guide book. Not to mention, multiple users are in the process on removing the guest stars in episode lists since there is already a List of Guest stars page. Not to mention, I split the writers for Treehouse of Horror II since that episode has six writers (2 writers wrote per segment). I wasn't trying to vandalize or start another edit war like I did last month. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that in The Simpsons (season 33) in an edit summary, you showed clear dislike about your edits failing to stick. If you haven't noticed already, most of the community tends to trust unregistered users/users without an account a lot less than registered users. This is because the majority of people who use IP addresses are often vandals (users that intentionally demolish pages), or sockpuppets (users that are just a mask of another user). If I may suggest, creating an account would be very beneficial, as users wouldn't treat your contributions with as much salt. Just click the "log in" button at the top, then press "sign up" to get started. If you can't make one, request an account by clicking on this link. If for some reason you can't do that, could you tell me why you can't make one? I, along with other people, would be glad to help! - 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, trying to defend your edits from being reverted is called "edit warring". It also falls under the "3 revert rule" which, if exceeded, can mean a temporary block. Please don't try to repeatedly keep your edits intact... it makes you look less trustworthy and less open to change. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well I already explained my reasoning in the "Formatting Episode Tables" talk page. If you want to read my reasoning, go to that talk section. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My main point isnt about your edits, it's about you not using an account. You're clearly showing an interest in Wikipedia, contributing many edits over time, so what's preventing you from making an account? 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Despite the IP address, I'm an actual human and I'm very passionate about animation so that's why majority of my edits are animation themed. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I... understand that, but you didn't answer my question 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if a create an account, no one will know who the user is if I make an edit. Then, they are going to revert it anyways. But I have a question, if I do create an account now, does that mean you can trust me more with my changes? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

1. Quite the opposite, people will know who you are if you make an edit, instead of a random string of numbers. You can count the edits you made off of your IP for self-receiving service awards, too.
2. Yes, people will trust you a bit more if you make an account, but how you really gain reputation and trustworthiness is by being open to change, making sure edits look the way you want them to by previewing your changes, leaving edit summaries and most importantly, find reliable sources (but don't use the same ones) for articles.

𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what, I SHOULD make an account. Also, I do preview my changes, find reliable sources and leaving edit summaries. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, but all of that can be more clearly visible with an account. So, good luck! 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I created an account. I'm now know as SpideyGeek13. I named it that way since I LOVE Spider-Man. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Have fun using Wikipedia registered! 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Why did you block me? I was just only adding a line break for writers that have longer names. I want to edit another right now but you blocked me. I don't like getting blocked since not just you can't edit for days but I also can't keep up with the "2022 in animation" page or remove any mistakes from other pages. Can you please unblock me and I promise not to mess around with those tables again? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)}

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Blocked for the third time

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was just only adding a line break for writers that have longer names. I want to edit another right now but you blocked me. I don't like getting blocked since not just you can't edit for days but I also can't keep up with the "2022 in animation" page or remove any mistakes from other pages. Not to mention, I blocked three times because I made disruptive, used a VPN and now this. I can't wait until the next month to edit again, all I did is to reorganize the tables that I want to have. If you unblock me now, can you please don't say that I have to wait until the 19th of November. That's too long and when I return to editing, it will be Christmastime already. Can you please unblock me and I promise not to mess around with those tables again?

Decline reason:

Block extended to three months. Stop wasting our time with these unblock requests that you either have to know won't be granted or which demonstrate you need to remain blocked indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

---

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 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Why do you need to extend to three months? The last time I got blocked for disruptive editing, it was only one month. Now I think you are taking this a bit too far. Maybe waiting for one month is a better idea before. Can you undo the extension back to one month? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A new request has been opened below, again. Closing this one. SQL^{Query Me!} 09:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

Hey, I feel really bad for you, but I don't think adding more requests will do you any good. If you want to talk to me until you're unblocked, I'm here for you! 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

According to your above message you now have a registered account. You have also been warned that editing while logged out is usually against Wikipedia policy. So why are you even trying to have your I.P. address unblocked? You do realise that if you edit from both your I.P. and your registered account you run the risk of both being blocked? Barry Wom (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know they prefer the feeling of anonymity, and I can respect that. But I feel that if they keep trying to get unblocked, not only will it increase the duration but their registered account might be blocked as well. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 13:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Although you blocked this IP for a month, extending my block until January 2023 is my only concern and it is a bit too far. For now, I will continue editing via my actual account. But the only thing I want is for my block for the IP address will be only for 1 month, not 3. I will continue editing in my account for now. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You should probably stick to your account, as editing with an account and an IP address simultaneously is disallowed and can get you even further blocked... 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 14:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I will continue editing in my account for now

So when the block on your I.P. is lifted in three months you plan to continue posting without logging in, despite having been warned that this will likely lead to further bans? Barry Wom (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what, I will only edit via using my account. It's just that since I'm a newcomer, there is a lot of features that I haven't used yet. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Page history suggests this IP has been in use since 2010, I wouldn't label that as newcomer material, unless that wasn't you. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 15:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I was meant to say the account is new, not the IP address. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ok. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I won't use the IP address anymore and instead use my SpideyFan13 account for editing. Can you talk to the administrators to unblock that account since it was blocked due to evading a previous block? It's just although I already explained my reasoning, nobody is responding with me on that account. I won't use the IP address anymore from now on. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I can try, but I doubt I'll get much of a chance since my account is fairly new (even though I've edited for like a year or two once in a while as an IP before, there's no way I can prove that.) 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 20:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, sent it to their talk page. Hopefully everything goes well. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 20:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! If the block is cleared, I can start editing again. As a result of being blocked, I was very bored and basically did nothing since there's no way to edit due to that block message, even if I didn't do anything with the new account other than evading an IP block. Hopefully, he and the rest of the administrators actually respond to me and unblock me. I promise that I didn't do anything other than evading. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This isnt a guarantee that your block will be reduced/removed, but at least we'll get a verdict on how the admins feel about this situation.. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I just feel annoyed that they have to block my newly formed account for 3 MONTHS even if they were only meant to block the IP address only, as I just opened a new account. I just want to add another page so badly, its been the whole day I haven't edit anything. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

They didnt block it by accident, they blocked it because they thought you were using it to bypass a block you had on this IP. Also I don't think complaining is gonna help your block get shortened :( 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 23:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to bypass a block I had with the IP which was a bad idea from the start, it's just that when I create an account, there is so many features I have yet to do (like creating a sandbox, creating an article, uploading a photo, etc.) Sorry I complained I little, it's just that the block was unexpected when I first logged on today, I just want NinjaRobotPirate to respond to me so he can unblock my new account, but he didn't respond for the entire day even though I was patient for the entire day. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I tried to reply to him in his talk page but unfortunately, the block prohibits me to reply. I just want to return to editing, I'm sorry I tried to evade an IP. That IP will be blocked but why can't my new account be unblocked, even if I didn't do anything with that account? I did read his talk page and he said that my reason of "not evade blocks ever again" doesn't make any sense. I'm trying to give out a better reason why my account needs to be unblocked. I literally just created it and whenever I do an edit, I usually add something like a person, event, date of birth, date of death, etc. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'm gonna sell it to you straight.

1. Unfortunately, most appeals for timed blocks get denied, as admins want you to wait for the designated time without any alternatives. I would advise you wait it out, because most admins are getting fed up with your appeals. I know it sounds tough, but 3 months goes by a little quicker than you think. If you keep filing appeal tickets, you run the risk of extending your block, or even worse, an indefinite one. (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy)
2. After the unblock period ends, only use your registered account. When you make an account, you're expected to solely use that account (unless you have alternate accounts for a good excuse). Normally, editing under an IP while having account doesn't do anything to the IP nor the account, because nobody knows they're linked. However, you not only publicly disclosed that you managed the account from your IP address, but you also used the account while having a block on your IP. This is a recipe for disaster, as most admins looking into this situation would conclude that you're trying to block evade.
3. To make sure you don't get blocked again, conform with the norm. You may like an article a certain way, but many others might not. If there's a group that establishes a norm (community established guideline), follow it. Failing to follow the norm could result in an edit war, a no-holds-barred dispute between two or more editors. Edit wars are highly prohibited and can cause a block.

Please try to follow these in the order they're given, I hate to see someone blocked repeatedly like this and not having a clue about why they're being blocked. - 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 23:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you need to talk about anything regarding your block, I (along with other people) am all ears! Otherwise I can't really help you, sorry :( 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 23:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand. But my only concern is that they EXTENDED the block period until JANAURY 2023. It was supposed to be until November 19th which it was originally but they extended it due to evading. How could I stay in touch for 2022 in Animation for the recent events and deaths? Worse enough since I was blocked, I CANNOT create an totally NEW account and delete the previous one. It feels like that I want to give up Wikipedia for now but I just don't want to. Wikipedia IS my passion and since you guys blocked me for the THIRD time, I can't keep in touch for my edits. Remember that my first block (the VPN block) was lifted after telling the truth about why I was blocked? Why can't I do the same thing with my new account, only this time explain my unblock reason better? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to appeal, which is risky, here's how to do it:

1. Make sure you, as a person, acknowledge what you've done and wholeheartedly believe that you will not do it in the future. This is the most important step. You, as a whole, come before your internet identity.
2. Wait until your current block appeal form is reviewed. If it's accepted, you can ignore the next steps. Filing multiple appeals at a time is considered a no-no because it causes more work for the admins.
3. Submit an appeal using the form, and describe what you did to get the block, then promise to not do it again. The form can be found here. Most of your previous appeals fell under the category "please unblock me I won't do it ever again", which by itself is barely passable and shows you aren't growing as a Wikipedian, because you haven't described what "it" is, you've only described your block reason and not what caused it.

𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 23:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblock reasoning

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I'm 69.255.225.138 (also known as SpideyGeek13). I made a very bad decision today. My IP address was blocked due to disruptive editing, which I know it is already bad enough. But what I did was a BIG mistake. You see, yesterday I created a new account called SpideyGeek13 and I was about to start editing under that account. What I unfortunately did is that I was requesting the administrators to unblock the IP address and they were concerned that I was trying to unblock ANOTHER account. So basically, I tried to EVADE my IP address. That was a BAD idea to start, I would've just left the IP alone and used the account instead because if I didn't complain about the 1 month block for the IP address, they would've never added 3 more months. I know I just created my account yesterday but the thing is although I understand I made a mistake, I DIDN'T EDIT TOO MANY THINGS UNDER MY NEW ACCOUNT! Most of my edits since when I joined back in 2021 were under 69.255.225.138. Although I got blocked multiple times, at least that I mostly trustworthy. However, I did suffer some blunders during my Wikipedia journey. Remember I tried to add storyboard artists to script-driven shows (ex. The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.) I tried to make a deal on keeping them but they keep denying. They showed me that the storyboard artists were only allowed if the show is storyboard-driven or if it is credited in the title cards. Luckily, I decided to give up adding the storyboard artists for scripted shows and reverted back to the way it is. I did suffer another blunder which is adding line-breaks to almost everyone. You see, I added specific numbers so I can fit the directors, writers neatly and also the production codes, airing dates and viewers can fit the table better. Unfortunately when I added line-breaks for the writers and directors of The Simpsons, they didn't like my changes and reverted back to the way it was. The only reason why I did in the first place is because in my opinion, it is sorted a little better. One nitpick about the list of episodes of The Simpsons pages is that since you now reverted my changes, some of the episode guides for different seasons is a bit inconsistent. If you can see the pages for seasons 5, 7 and 33, the directors and writers are VERY condensed and title takes up most of the table. Coincidentally, the line-breaks and storyboards incidents might be the reason why I was blocked for disruptive editing. To tell the truth, I was being disruptive at Wikipedia. Since the beginning of September, I keep acting very nitpicky about some edits. From storyboards, to line-breaks, to evading my IP address, I really didn't have that much good luck for these past two months. I'm going to be very honest that I will NEVER, EVER do these things again in the future when it comes to editing. When I edit, I will use different sources, be nice to the users, don't add storyboard parameters for non storyboard driven or scripted shows, and ESPECIALLY not trying to unblock another account like I just did today. I promise that I will become a better user for Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Request moved to User_talk:SpideyGeek13. SQL^{Query Me!} 04:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

---

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.

69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I just told you to wait until your previous appeal was reviewed.. Why did you make another so soon? 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 00:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well this appeal is more constructive than the previous one. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it ok to replace the old text from the first appeal with the new text from the second appeal? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can replace appeals.. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 00:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I read the guide to appeals and this appeal is actually more constructive. I explained what happened, why I was blocked, and made a promise to not do anything like that again. Are you talking the appeal for SpideyGeek13 or the appeal above? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the appeal itself is great. The problem, unfortunately, is that you already had an appeal active, so now you have 2 open at a time, which usually comes off as annoying to people. I recommended to wait until the old appeal closed. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 00:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, when the first appeal gets denied, may I use the more constructive appeal after? Can you let me know if the first one is denied and I can use the other appeal instead? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I will wait for any responses. See you then. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can see when it's denied by checking on the previous appeal. It will either say it's denied or accepted. If denied, you can then submit the newer appeal. I hope this helps :) 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬

• An open appeal may be edited or altered at any time by the appellant prior to its review. If you would prefer that your most recent appeal be the one that is reviewed, you can just remove the unblock template from your first appeal(I'd leave the message to preserve the integrity of the discussion) 331dot (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've gone ahead and closed the earlier request above. SQL^{Query Me!} 09:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ah ok. Didn't know the procedures, sorry for assuming. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 10:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hopefully it will be approved since I explained why I was blocked. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another problem is that when I tried to reply to the people that blocked me, I'm not allowed to talk to any user other than my talk page. I'm trying to convince to the other users to unblock me since my current appeal explains in detail why I was blocked. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I was very honest with my reasonings this time unlike the previous blocks, so can you please let me have my editing privileges back? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can't restore your editing privileges :(

  Only admins and higher-permissioned users can do that - I'm not even autoconfirmed yet, 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe you could mention an admin using @, which auto-opens a menu of recent users you've talked to. You can also type in a username to ping them manually. By mentioning them, they get an alert that leads over here. I wouldn't recommend this due to your history of appeal requests, but it's an option. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 21:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  How could I do that since when I go to the user accounts, It will block me from talking to them? I get what are you saying but how could I mention an admin? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Specifically I want to talk to Yamla who is an admin/higher-permissioned account who is the one who EXTENDED my block time to three months, I wanted to talk to that user since I actually have a reason why I want to get unblocked. All I need to do is to talk to him but I can't because I'm blocked. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain the admin thing a little better so I could try to do that? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Also while I try to do that, can you discuss this topic with Yamla and maybe he could think about unblocking me? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  You can @ an admin by using it here. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Serenbliss, I'm going to move my reason for my appeal (not the appeal itself) but the one when I have to @ an admin to the SpideyGeek13 account. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ok. 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 18:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  The conversation will continue under my SpideyGeek13 account. Yamla did say it is okay to be unblocked but they have to explain some of my edits first. I already did but Yamla and NinjaRobotPirate didn't respond to me yet. I'm THIS close to be unblocked. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  I hope you get unblocked, I feel you can right your wrong and move past your history of incidents. I believe in you! 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 14:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! I waiting for either Yamla or NinjaRobotPirate to respond because man, waiting until 2023 to edit again is bit too much. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  I am inclined to decline this request, as it appears you have been editing logged out under another IP as recently as today, and have created another account. Please explain. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  The conversation will continue under my SpideyGeek13 account. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

---