User talk:IAmNMFlores
IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO POST ON MY TALK PAGE[edit]
Editing on Wiki is one of my favorite hobbies, and I love helping to improve articles the way I can. If I make mistakes, I promise they are all in good faith and do not mean any harm. I have sadly learned the hard way what is considered "distuptive", having been blocked once for a period of 31 hours. I humbly ask if you are here to warn me to please discuss if I have made some mistake. I promise to keep improving when needed, as I do not wish to lose the privilege of editing alongside y'all and improving articles throughout Wikipedia. Thanks. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Streaming Service Distributors[edit]
Originally on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 80#Distributors regarding streaming services
I've learned from the TV side of Wikipedia that we've been listing the distributors for streaming service original films to the streaming service itself and not the actual distributor to the service. I thought I'd finally make it clear to list them (updates can happen).:
NOTE - Doesn't apply to films that are otherwise noted. Double check with sources or the films themselves.
(Sorted A-Z)
- (Amazon) Prime Video: Change to Amazon Studios (most have gotten this already since they actually have their logo shown).
- Apple TV+: If the film was played in theaters and streaming out BOTH Apple Original Films and Apple TV+, but if streaming only put Apple TV+ (under Apple Original Films).
- Disney+: Change to Disney Platform Distribution.
- HBO Max: Change unneeded.
- Hulu: Change unneeded.
- Netflix: Change unneeded. Netflix Studios or Netflix Streaming Services are ok name alternatives (except the latter if the film is released simultaneously in theaters).
- Paramount+: Change to Paramount Global Distribution Group
- Peacock: Change to NBCUniversal Syndication Studios.
- Shudder: Change unneeded
- Tubi: Change unneeded.
IAmNMFlores (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
February 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Apparently, you decided to see if I was bluffing with Special:Diff/1140801137. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- First, the source said PRODUCED in association with, NOT PRESENTED. If that was still wrong, I apologize and thought it was a technicality; not to mention you lied about saying my edits were unsourced, I did have a source. Second, you didn't even give me a proper level 1 warning after the last "disruptive" edit, and you already went to blocking after the third one, seriously? Third, is User:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy your second account, because if it is that would be sock-puppetry.IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
IAmNMFlores (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My reverted edits were not persistent as initially reported, and were only in good faith. I had simply misunderstood a source, and meant no harm. It was only after two edits on two different pages that I was blocked. I wasn't even given a first-level warning.
Decline reason:
Your unsourced additions certainly were persistent and you've been warned repeatedly for both this and for edit warring. The block is only for 31 hours. This will give you a chance to properly understand the seriousness and to find appropriate, reliable sources. Yamla (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2023 (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.
"Hellraiser (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
March 2023[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)I find it odd that after being clearly warned about this and previously blocked, you're still adding unsourced production companies. If you wait out this block and continue doing this, I will block you until you can explain Wikipedia's policies to my satisfaction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did you not read User talk:IAmNMFlores#IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO POST ON MY TALK PAGE? IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
IAmNMFlores (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Firstly, the edit in question was not even full reverted, as it still contained valid contributions. Secondly, admin ignored my statement to please talk to me first to resolve any issues without the use of punishment (see User talk:IAmNMFlores#IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO POST ON MY TALK PAGE). Finally, I had made countless helpful contributions since my last block, doing my best and working in the same manner (aka "going with the flow") with my fellow editors, so I feel this punishment for that single edit seems rather unwarranted. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Blocks are not a punishment, but a means of preventing disruption to Wikipedia. You get less leeway when you do the same behavior for which you were previously blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2023 (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.
IAmNMFlores (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My edits were not persistent; it was about a month ago since I last made such an mistake. Again, I had specifically asked those at User talk:IAmNMFlores#IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO POST ON MY TALK PAGE to please talk to me first so we can resolve more easily, but it was ignored. IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block has now expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2023 (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.
- (talk page stalker) Your personal preferences for your talk page don't apply here. You were already temp blocked for your repeated unsourced changes (which many editors told you not to do), and yet you persisted (ie, at the DC film articles). You also branded all of your changes and unsourced additions as "small fixes", which they in fact are not. Mass changes to which companies produce films, changed links and reception info, and straight-up removals are not WP:MINOREDIT. When you make a WP:BOLD change and are reverted, it is up to you to discuss the changes at the article talk page (per WP:BRD, not to continue it on other articles after being informed they are unsourced and disruptive. The timeline of disruptive edits and a block does not always need to be close together, and it is not a punishment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is literally the definition of punishment, intentional or not; I can't even use my sandbox anymore. Not "many editors", ONE editor; name one other who "warns" or blocks me other than NinjaRobotPirate. "Small/some fixes" doesn't mean anything, I admit I was a little lazy in most of my edit summaries buy I NEVER marked them as minor edits. Those DC film articles, once they were reverted I didn't do it again, because I realized they had a point. I also don't get the luxury of talking it over at the article's talk page if it's reverted by NinjaRobotPirate who simply just blocks me. What do you mean they don't need to be close together when the block clearly says PERSISTENT. So what, if I go a whole year and oops do an accidental mistake I'll get blocked again? Also, let's be clear about something, the infobox is one of the least sourced sections of an article, yet somehow I'M singled out, warned, and blocked for good faith edits on it? P.S. How am I supposed to assume NinjaRobotPirate is not against me or thi ks I'm doing this on purpose when he says stuff like "Apparently, you decided to see if I was bluffing" and " I will block you until you can explain Wikipedia's policies to my satisfaction". IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot speak to other editors' reasoning or handling of situations. Blocks are given as a learning experience, which I hope is met. Saying edits are small implies they are minor, when they are not. In regards to persistent, after the DC reverts, you still make similar unsourced edits to other film articles. Just because one area tells you it is not okay does not mean it is automatically okay elsewhere. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Blocks don't teach anything, all it says is "do that again and this will happen again too." It's like saying prison is a learning experience. Also, you don't think it's confusing to see people get away with the same stuff I have done, so sorry for assuming it was okay. Maybe if everyone was treated more equally I wouldn't be so pressed about it. I looked back and I saw most of the ones where I made bold changes I put SOME fixes, not SMALL. IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, things will get through the cracks, this doesn't mean they are okay or that we should permit misbehavior because we can't catch everyone. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not asking to permit misbehavior, I'm saying there should be more justified consequences when it comes to misinterpretation and/or accidents. Read this again: "Apparently, you decided to see if I was bluffing". The admin obviously believes I was testing him ON PURPOSE which couldn't be more far from the truth. I'm being categorized as the same people who just write random stuff on articles, and actively ignore all warnings. I at least put stuff with some sort of logical basis, it just needed a citation. However when you have an admin who doesn't even reply back, you're asking me to trust this person as if I deserve to be blocked by when I was simply doing what everyone else was doing. When I get unblocked, I'm gonna be watching my back because I would fear doing even the tiniest mistype whether it could happen in a year or a decade will have me banned for "persistent disruption". If that's what you wanted to teach, then you did a phenomenal job. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- To be fair, @NinjaRobotPirate probably has a TON of pages on thier watchlist, and I'll bet that they didn't notice your reply. Especially as it was lacking a notification.
- I would strongly suggest taking a step back for a moment, reading the guide to appealing blocks, and calmly addressing the behavior that led to your block - instead of lashing out at the responding admins here. Continuing to do so will likely result in a loss of the ability to edit this page for the duration of your block. SQLQuery Me! 23:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- How is that lashing out? I never insulted them or even used profanity. I have a right to express my frustration. Besides, my appeal is on top of this discussion, unless someone failed to mention that this was a part of it. IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, spread across many topics. The pages I choose are engineering to maximize coverage of a topic area. For example, I might watchlist Halloween 5, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, Friday the 13th Part 7, Hellraiser 3, and Child's Play 2. Although this may seem totally random, anybody who edits slasher films will eventually show up on my watchlist. Similarly, I'll eventually see disruptive edits to children's cartoons, association football teams, heavy metal bands, voice actors, professional wrestlers, etc.
I don't have much patience any more for people who ignore clear warnings. Earlier, I tried to work with people and teach them how to edit properly, then I'd guide them through the unblock process. It never worked. So I stopped doing that. Instead, I now typically jump to blocks, then indefinite blocks when temporary blocks are clearly not having any effect. It saves both me and the blocked editor a lot of wasted time. Someone who doesn't listen to warnings isn't going to listen to advice on how to properly edit Wikipedia, either. So, I'm just not going to be very talkative.
If you ignore warnings, you get blocked. That's just how Wikipedia works. You also don't get new warnings after a final warning. That is the nature of a final warning, after all. Also, I do thousands of blocks every year. For you, maybe I'm your nemesis. For me, you're the one of the 26 people I've blocked in the past week. If you continue, you'll be the eighth person that I've indefinitely blocked in the past week. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can understand being frustrated. As I said, it's time to take a step back, read the guide to appealing blocks, and try to address the behavior that led to your block. In my experience taking an abusive / sarcastic tone with the volunteer admins responding to your request will generally not result in your block being lifted. In some cases, I have seen the block being increased in duration, or being made more restricitive. SQLQuery Me! 05:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have thousands of pages on my watchlist, spread across many topics. The pages I choose are engineering to maximize coverage of a topic area. For example, I might watchlist Halloween 5, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, Friday the 13th Part 7, Hellraiser 3, and Child's Play 2. Although this may seem totally random, anybody who edits slasher films will eventually show up on my watchlist. Similarly, I'll eventually see disruptive edits to children's cartoons, association football teams, heavy metal bands, voice actors, professional wrestlers, etc.
- How is that lashing out? I never insulted them or even used profanity. I have a right to express my frustration. Besides, my appeal is on top of this discussion, unless someone failed to mention that this was a part of it. IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not asking to permit misbehavior, I'm saying there should be more justified consequences when it comes to misinterpretation and/or accidents. Read this again: "Apparently, you decided to see if I was bluffing". The admin obviously believes I was testing him ON PURPOSE which couldn't be more far from the truth. I'm being categorized as the same people who just write random stuff on articles, and actively ignore all warnings. I at least put stuff with some sort of logical basis, it just needed a citation. However when you have an admin who doesn't even reply back, you're asking me to trust this person as if I deserve to be blocked by when I was simply doing what everyone else was doing. When I get unblocked, I'm gonna be watching my back because I would fear doing even the tiniest mistype whether it could happen in a year or a decade will have me banned for "persistent disruption". If that's what you wanted to teach, then you did a phenomenal job. IAmNMFlores (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, things will get through the cracks, this doesn't mean they are okay or that we should permit misbehavior because we can't catch everyone. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Blocks don't teach anything, all it says is "do that again and this will happen again too." It's like saying prison is a learning experience. Also, you don't think it's confusing to see people get away with the same stuff I have done, so sorry for assuming it was okay. Maybe if everyone was treated more equally I wouldn't be so pressed about it. I looked back and I saw most of the ones where I made bold changes I put SOME fixes, not SMALL. IAmNMFlores (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I cannot speak to other editors' reasoning or handling of situations. Blocks are given as a learning experience, which I hope is met. Saying edits are small implies they are minor, when they are not. In regards to persistent, after the DC reverts, you still make similar unsourced edits to other film articles. Just because one area tells you it is not okay does not mean it is automatically okay elsewhere. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is literally the definition of punishment, intentional or not; I can't even use my sandbox anymore. Not "many editors", ONE editor; name one other who "warns" or blocks me other than NinjaRobotPirate. "Small/some fixes" doesn't mean anything, I admit I was a little lazy in most of my edit summaries buy I NEVER marked them as minor edits. Those DC film articles, once they were reverted I didn't do it again, because I realized they had a point. I also don't get the luxury of talking it over at the article's talk page if it's reverted by NinjaRobotPirate who simply just blocks me. What do you mean they don't need to be close together when the block clearly says PERSISTENT. So what, if I go a whole year and oops do an accidental mistake I'll get blocked again? Also, let's be clear about something, the infobox is one of the least sourced sections of an article, yet somehow I'M singled out, warned, and blocked for good faith edits on it? P.S. How am I supposed to assume NinjaRobotPirate is not against me or thi ks I'm doing this on purpose when he says stuff like "Apparently, you decided to see if I was bluffing" and " I will block you until you can explain Wikipedia's policies to my satisfaction". IAmNMFlores (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)