User talk:70.183.230.83

June 2023

Hello, I'm NinjaRobotPirate. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Rugrats Movie, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Nickelodeon Movies didn't produce the film and only the distributed? That's confusing. I'll try to write a reliable source. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at The Rugrats Movie, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can now understand that while they were done at it, we don't have to add animation studios to EVERY page of an animated movie. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Dora and the Lost City of Gold, you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No more of that on that page. Thanks for the reminder. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Fast and Furry-ous, you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Finding Dory, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess it should be called just Finding Dory, which also suites more because it has Dory as the lead character unlike Finding Nemo which had Nemo and also Marlin characters. I bet even in the possible sequel called Finding Marlin, they will probably be taking the lead roles in that too. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Finding Dory, you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not even the SpongeBob Movies? The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water is a sequel and can also be titled The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2 or SpongeBob SquarePants 2. And also The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie should also be called SpongeBob SquarePants! 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that shows it was an official alternative title. Otherwise it doesn't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the alternative titles for these films on IMDb when you pull up the movies on the website. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source WP:IMDB isn't one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of VeggieTales characters. N7o2h3 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will never add any poor editing this or that page again. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, at 70.183.230.83, has made edits that do not conform to our policies and guidelines and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

Help contents – the main help page.
Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Introduction to Wikipedia

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! N7o2h3 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Barry Wom (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the Rugrats movie be called simply as Rugrats? 70.183.230.83 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing.[reply]

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rugrats in Paris: The Movie, you may be blocked from editing. You have been warned about this previously; the title does not require what you claim is the "full title". Please stop your disruptive editing to film articles. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it just says the full title on IMDb. I just like to follow it. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I that case, i suggest you read this and understand (and stop) the disruptive behaviour your are making. Why not stop your rubbish, make an account, and become a full member of the community? I notice that the vast majority of your edits are reverted; it would be far better if you were to become productive and join us. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I'd like to do, actually become a member of Wikipedia. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't want to be blocked for two years.

I'm so sorry about my distributive editing. It was not like I was doing it on purpose, I actually didn't know better about these pages of what was needed or didn't needed. I don't want to be blocked for two years, that is too long for me to take. Give me another chance and I this time 100% promise won't even bother to edit on Wikipedia unless I really have to! 70.183.230.83 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Barry Wom (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think a twin film being as part of a franchise would make any sense 70.183.230.83 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Penguins of Madagascar, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit that page at all better yet. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film), you may be blocked from editing. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that My Little Pony characters and the B.O.B., who is a monster from the franchise itself called Monsters vs. Aliens, make cameo appearances, which makes me think that this film should be related to the franchise. I also don't see why the Kung Fu Panda franchise should be releated to this because that is about Po the Panda (going by the title), and this only had Master Mantis appear, not really making this related, even since the franchise didn't really have a spin-off based on the furious five. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Balto II: Wolf Quest. Wiiformii (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a reason why Balto II can be considered as a computer animated film using computer ASSISED senses and not computer ANIMATED ones, cause I don't. I remember looking at this back in the past and it never said it was a computer animated film? 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiiformii, I actually was giving a valid reason for that page, I was editing it back to the way it was in the past. I see that as a valid reason, at least it's not a new edit. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This IP address has been blocked from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other IP addresses. If you believe there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of the talk page of the IP address which has your original block which you have been evading. JBW (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm really sorry for my disruptive editing last week, If you unblock me, then I would have to make a deal and not break it: Never do the same disruptive editing again, and always explore unless if I have a specific reason to edit. Could you please consider this promise, and also forgive me? 70.183.230.83 (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block. Yamla (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (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.

What did I do wrong?

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know what I did wrong when you blocked me, can you tell me something that I did wrong and I won't do it again? 70.183.230.83 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is clearly stated in the block notice. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2024 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I saw the notice, and right now (and even after when I saw I was blocked), I feel bad for what I've been doing those times and thought to myself maybe these actions were not so good to me too after all. I'm very sorry. Now, if you unblock me a little bit sooner (I don't know when that will be), I will need to stick to what I just told you and improve my editing actions on this website. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (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.

In under a year, I count 14 warnings and 92 edits that have been reverted for one reason or another. I cannot imagine, at this point, that any admin would be willing to unblock you without extensive evidence of constructive editing on another project, such as Simple Wikipedia. What would a 15th warning do that the first 14 could not? The only reason the block is "only" three years is that finite bans for IP addresses are much preferred because people tend to change IPs; if you were using an account, the block would almost certainly be indefinite, until such time that you convinced an admin that the behaviors would not repeat. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The past times I've been blocked from Wikipedia and had to wait a while to get unblocked, I've quickly learn what I shouldn't have done and what I'm not supposed to do here a lot sooner than you think, because I grow up more to realize this and be real careful in future times of doing this and not letting you down. I'm trying to also make fact statements and not opinion ones and actually try to fix something that didn't need opinions that I myself didn't think was true. 70.183.230.83 (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2024 (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.

CoffeeCrumbs, have you thought about what you think about for this reason?

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.