MoonMetropolis

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MoonMetropolis, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your recent discussion with another editor does not conform to Wikipedia's policy on Civility towards other editors. The focus in any dispute should be on edits and never editors.

There's a page about the Civility policy that has tips on how to interact with other editors. If issues continue, you may need to look into Dispute Resolution.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Assume Good Faith policy

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ES&L 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been here in various forms since circa 2005 and you posting a condescending comment accusing me of making "smartarsed replies" doesn't really make you look any better than me in this case.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You've been around? Yet you make comments like that? I'm shocked. Yes, admins have had to tell people to stop posting on ANI before - an experienced editor would have apologized on their second post in that situation, not be even more uncivil ES&L 10:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has told me to stop posting on ANI. Ever. In fact, I highly doubt that any mod would tell someone to flat-out not post anything on ANI. If the user was repeatedly misbehaving on ANI (or on any other page), the admins would simply block them. Also, I'm pretty sure that you're the one being "uncivil" here. Oh, and you can "believe" whatever you want to believe.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right - nobody has yet told you to stop posting on ANI. You have been asked to stop being uncivil and unhelpful on ANI. If you do not understand the request, either ignore it or ask for clarification - do not accuse the OP of being drunk, or incoherent. That is the supposedly "uncivil message" that you need to collect from this discussion. ES&L 11:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been "asked" by precisely one person, and that would be you. If anyone else thought that I was being uncivil, then they would have said something. But calling an incoherent posting incoherent isn't exactly the same as telling someone to go fuck themselves.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You were advised by TWO people that the post was NOT incoherent. As such, calling it incoherent - TWICE - was uncivil - someone who has been around for a number of years knows that. People come to ANI with real issues. Downplaying them or being condescending to someone with a REAL issue is extremely problematic - of course, anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows that too. Look, I've been extremely polite with you - absolutely nothing uncivil with what I've said. If you want to get defensive and argue that you have the RIGHT to make fun of people, I'm shocked - long term editors know better than that. Consensus is that the post was legible and coherent - live with it, as that's the Wikipedia model. ES&L 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The other person never said anything about it being coherent or not and I fail to see how someone saying that Jimbo told them something about how they haven't been anywhere interesting their life is a "real issue". And, if this is "extremely polite" by your standards, then I'd hate to see you being "rude". You could hardly be more smug or condescending here, particularly the comment implying that I've never "spent time with real people in social settings". You might as well just openly call me autistic while you're at it. Also, I thought your last post was "final"?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've not been smug, condescending or implied anything - and with my extensive knowledge of autism, it's rather offensive that you would go down the route of attributing such malice to my suggestions. How about you try reading everything I have said without the chip on your shoulder, and try and see in in the friendly, non-threatening manner that it was all intended to be - life's much nicer without battleground thinking ES&L 13:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't pretend for a second like you're not being smug and condescending with comments like "of course, anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows that too." Anyone who has spent time with real people in social settings knows how supercilious a remark like that is. And actually going through my contributions and adding completely unnecessary tags to one of my articles takes it to a whole new level of passive-aggressive. I'm sorry if you feel the need to start some kind of ridiculous online feud with me, but I really don't want anything to do with it.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You're pure wrong - so please don't ever accuse me of lying. As for that single article, it was unreferenced (imdb doesn't count) and showed no signs of notability - the tags were both valid, as you already know (being a long-time contributor). You're clearly the one feuding here, and you're right - I want no part of it. My original goal - asking you not to be condescending and uncivil to people who ask for help on ANI - is complete. I will leave you and your shoulder-chip to yourself. ES&L 09:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm "pure wrong"? Wow, you sure told me who's who and what's what alright. I now see the error of my ways, O wise one. The page you added tags to consisted almost entirely of a plot summary and, as a long-time editor such as yourself should know, films are their own sources. Ergo, your pathetic little attempt at taking a passive-aggressive swipe at me by adding unnecessary tags to an article I created just shows how truly petty and immature you really are. And yes, I am a long-time editor, so, once again, your attempt at taking a snarky swipe at me falls flat on its face. I know I'm a long-time editor. Do I care if you believe me? Not in the slightest. Now please, by all means, leave me and my "shoulder-chip" to myself and go act like a pompous, arrogant child on someone else's talk page.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi MoonMetropolis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Kick-Heart

Hello, MoonMetropolis,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Kick-Heart should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick-Heart .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Videomaniac29 (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for some of your uploads

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

• File:Clip Poster.jpg
• File:Ax Em DVD Cover.jpg
• File:A Gun for Jennifer Poster.jpg
• File:Father's Day Poster.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MoonMetropolis, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Oregonian

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Your recent editing history at The Oregonian (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Princess from the Moon

A tag has been placed on Princess from the Moon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources to support the notability of this film as per Wikipedia protocol.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Gun for Jennifer

A tag has been placed on A Gun for Jennifer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources whatsover showing notability of this film--not all films are notable.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 0-D Beat Drop

A tag has been placed on 0-D Beat Drop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources whatsover showing notability of this film--not all films are notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 0-D Beat Drop

A tag has been placed on 0-D Beat Drop, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources whatsover showing notability of this game--not all games are notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ilsa, the Wicked Warden

A tag has been placed on Ilsa, the Wicked Warden, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources whatsover showing notability of this film--not all films are notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Gun for Jennifer

A tag has been placed on A Gun for Jennifer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

No sources whatsover showing notability of this film--not all films are notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages you started yourself as per Wikipedia protocols. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Princess from the Moon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princess from the Moon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess from the Moon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of A Gun for Jennifer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Gun for Jennifer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Gun for Jennifer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 0-D Beat Drop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 0-D Beat Drop is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0-D Beat Drop until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Ilsa, the Wicked Warden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ilsa, the Wicked Warden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, the Wicked Warden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regardless of how other editors may or may not be behaving towards you, civility is not optional and personal attacks are never acceptable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did I violate the civility policy? I never attacked anyone, although User:EatsShootsAndLeaves certainly did.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I do think you should take it easy. If I were you, I'd delete all those ugly templates from my talk page and move on. A case for hounding cannot yet be made, since all the articles tagged were related, so to speak, and there is no evidence of anything long-term. Plus, I doubt that they'll tag your articles again. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I did what? I never posted anything on your talk page.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, your talk page would be my talk page, wouldn't it. I'm talking about your talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:3RR: You do realize that users have every right to remove messages (with certain limited exceptions, and {{trout}} is not one of those) from their user talk page without being subject to 3RR. However, the other editor who keeps re-adding the content is subject to it. —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think he was trying to say that if he were you he would remove the tags from this page and just move on. And speaking of moving on, I came here to have a word with you about your disruptive editing at User talk:Jeremy112233. what you are doing there is completely unacceptable. Users are free to remove anything they like from their own talk page and it is not ok to try and forcibly re-instate it as you have, and even less ok to then warn them for edit warring. Now, you are clearly having a bit of a bad day here, but that does not excuse such behavior. A block would be perfectly justified right now considering how recently your last block for edit warring was. I suggest you take a break, or an involuntary break may be forthcoming in the near future. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 Hours for edit warring, as you did at User talk:Jeremy112233. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  GB fan 23:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, I get 60 hours for edit warring and the IPs making grotesque sexual threats on my talk page get less than 40. Yep, the decisions of the admins on here make about as much sense as I remember.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Strange, but reasonable. The two IPs are so similar in style, yet so geographically separate, that one would suspect proxies rather than vandals. As such, there's just not much point in blocking them for longer (unless it recurs, in which case an indef). It's certainly not an indication that their offence is somehow "lesser". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting!

People are free to remove comments from their talk as they see fit! Your reverting is just as disruptive as vandalism and if you continue you WILL find yourself blocked! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disregard the comment about being blocked above... It has already happened! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

MM, as you can see, other than reverting vandalism, I also logged into my admin account to semi-protect your talkpage from those attacks. As that action was against my promised 6-month "holiday" from my admin tools, I have opened a discussion on WP:AN where you may wish to comment. As you are currently blocked from editing, you cannot comment on AN directly. You may use the {{helpme}} template, followed by the statement "Please copy the following to the appropriate thread on AN"...followed by your statement. PS: If you have any idea who that IP might be, let me know. ES&L 10:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I did notice that it was more than one IP address posting the threats and, when I checked last, they had only been given very small blocks (a lot less than what I got for edit warring).--MoonMetropolis (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason they are short blocks is because IP's can typically regenerate with a new IP in seconds, so longer blocks in that case are useless. As you can see, the 2 attacks came from 2 different IP's mere minutes from each other, and are undoubtedly the same childish and cowardly individual. That's the reason I prevented further anonymous edits to this page, rather than playing whack-a-mole ES&L 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone on the AN discussion stated, they are most likely open proxies. Thank you for protecting the page, though. Also, may I ask what the point is of removing uncivil edits from the public record? A while back, edits were very rarely wiped from the public record and only for things like posting someone's address.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

See the conditions of WP:REVDEL - "grossly insulting" was probably the case ES&L 12:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that they've been using WP:REVDEL a lot more than before. As I recall, not even the most outrageous insults were removed in the past, but even the mildest ones are removed nowadays. The only thing I clearly remember being removed in the past was when someone posted a detailed and exceptionally gruesome threat to an admin on their talk page - and that was only after someone brought it up several months after it was posted. Also, although my block has expired, I receive the following message when attempting to edit: "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MoonMetropolis". The reason given for MoonMetropolis's block is: "Edit warring"." This is a message that would be given to me if I were to attempt to edit while logged out during a block, so why am I receiving it while logged in and unblocked?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Still Blocked

Although my block has expired, I receive the following message when attempting to edit: "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MoonMetropolis". The reason given for MoonMetropolis's block is: "Edit warring"." This is a message that would be given to me if I were to attempt to edit while logged out during a block, so why am I receiving it while logged in and unblocked?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I need the full block message. Without it, I can't find the autoblock associated with you. There should be a number in the message as well. It should provide you with some code to request an unblock. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way that I can post it without anyone who isn't an admin seeing it? I really don't want people knowing my IP address.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There should just be a number like "Autoblock #12345678" -- this does not indicate your IP. This is the number I need. Do you see this number? Feel free to copy the entire message and just leave out the IP part. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Block ID, right? In that case, it's #4588194.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done, the block should be cleared now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!--MoonMetropolis (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. MoonMetropolis, thanks for creating I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Direct-to-video films

Hi, I had re-categorized two of the articles you've started. Please, Category:Direct-to-video films is now meant as a container category, thus you should've use some of its subcategories as I've already done for you.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have conveniently linked our BLP policy. Please review it, and think twice before you accuse people of pedophilia on, for instance, WP:ANI, or anywhere else in any of Wikipedia's name spaces. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? He is a self-admitted pedophile who ran numerous subreddits dedicated to borderline child porn. It's not libel. It's a fact, as the article itself describes in detail.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do know. I read the article, I read the Gawker article, I read a bunch of others. Our article says no such thing, and neither does the Gawker article (in which you can read the sentence "On the phone, Michael Brutsch insisted he is not a pedophile", putting the lie to your statement). I suggest you read it again. And our BLP policy. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine, then, he's an "ephebophile". Whatever you want to call it, it doesn't change anything whatsoever about my argument.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you please read more carefully? The article doesn't even say that. Posting such pictures doesn't mean he's anything. You can call him an internet troll, that's verified, but in quotation marks. And your "fine" means, I suppose, that you know you were wrong. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It means that my semantics were technically wrong. No, he's not a pedophile in the technical sense. He is, however, an ephebophile. Anyone who collects pictures of underage girls in suggestive positions - to the point of actually taking pictures of them without their permission - is very clearly attracted to them, and to state otherwise would be simply absurd. While many of his subs (like /r/beatingwomen and /r/picsofdeadkids) were created for pure trolling purposes, the guy is, without a doubt, sexually attracted to underage girls.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 05:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what you say: original research. Stating that you are incorrect is not absurd at all. This guy did stuff to attract attention. He didn't collect them, as far as we know, for his own purposes: he did it to put them in those Reddit threads, for others. I find it somewhat revolting that I have to defend our BLP for someone like that, but that's the way it is. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: don't use Wikipedia to attack living people. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to malign living people. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I was using it as an example of the unsavory nature of the Reddit community, which I think is completely justified. Would I not be allowed to "malign", say, Bashar al-Assad since he's still alive?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you aren't even allowed to do that. This is not a slippery slope: it's pretty clear-cut, and BLP offenses are blockable offenses. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Survive! (film)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Survive! (film), MoonMetropolis!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

No issues. Thanks for your work.

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Surrealist films

Do not add articles to the Surrealist films category and do not claim that a film is Surrealist unless that claim is backed by a reliable source. None of the films to which you have added said claims were made by people associated with the Surrealist movement, nor were any of those articles referenced in any way that supported the claim. Your opinion of what is or is not Surrealist is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia and you must provide sources. Any further such edits will be regarded as disruptive editing. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The surrealist films category is not exclusive to films directed by people associated with a "movement". If that were the case, the only films that would qualify would be films from the 1920s. Surrealism is an art style. And your opinion is just as worthless as anyone else's.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my opinion. All of the films in that category are there after long-term discussion and after references were added to the articles showing the influence of Surrealism. You have added no references indicating any Surrealist influence in any of the films you have edited. As I said, any further such edits will be treated as article disruption and dealt with accordingly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that that's total bullshit. There is no "long-term discussion" over whether films like The Holy Mountain and Mulholland Drive are "surrealist". The films that I added surrealist categories too are absolutely no less surreal than either of those films. By your logic, there would need to be "long-term discussion" over adding, say, [[Category:Drama films]] to an article.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Oregonian (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. I suggest you not start edit-warring on this matter, because you will lose. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

No response to my argument, huh? Yeah, I figured as much. Kindly quit wasting my time please.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• 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. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You never responded to me. One does not need to add a citation for every single genre that a movie is described as - films are their own sources. And Viva la muerte, in particular, says "surreal" right on the cover, which is included in the article. Would I need to add citations for every film described as a "drama"? How about every film described as "comedy"? Would I need to link to multiple sources confirming that the film is, in fact, a comedy - even if the film says "comedy" right on the cover? No, I didn't think so.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Your recent editing history at I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

An entire week is a bit extreme, especially since: 1. The other made no attempt to respond to my concerns. I tried to reason with them to no avail. 2. The user also has a prior history of blocks, but only received 24 hours this time. I, on the other hand, had my block extended to an entire week, even though my past behavior was actually less unruly than his. 3. The user created a sock account to revert edits on the same articles, even after another user was kind enough to add citations to them. No action was taken regarding this.

Decline reason:

The length is based on your previous problems with edit warring; three blocks now this month. I see nothing else here to indicate you understand the problem, and your focus on the other editor does not help. Kuru (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2013 (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.

Moon, you'll want to read WP:NOTTHEM and revise the request ES&L 08:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Creating this account: TheOldJacobite2 (talk · contribs) and trying to cover your tracks using open proxies has just earned you an indefinite block. Elockid^(Boo!) 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't create any sock accounts - nor have I ever used any sort of proxies - and I am quite frankly rather confused at these accusations. How could Checkuser know whose sock someone is if that person is block evading? A person couldn't possibly use the same IP address to create a sock if that person is blocked.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Even without CU. It is quite blatant that you created TheOldJacobite2. One edit in particular tipped me off that it was you and that you were editing through proxies (I will share this information with CUs only). Other than the reasons I have already stated, there are more reasons why an indefinite block is valid. Multiple counts of egregious attacks towards others and using good hand, bad hand accounts, just to name a few. Elockid^(Boo!) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So, basically, I'm indefblocked based on suspicions with zero proof. And I have never made "egregious attacks" on anyone, nor havs I created other accounts. Check my block history and you'll see only two blocks for edit warring.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, your statement about having only two blocks is wrong. You have one block for edit warring and two blocks for 3RR violation. I don't have zero proof. This information is confidential and may not be shared per policy. So I will not disclose it to anyone besides the Arbitration Committee or other CUs. I'll give you this much, this was a classic, textbook case of sockpuppetry. If you feel so strongly that you are unfairly blocked then you can appeal your block at WP:BASC. Elockid^(Boo!) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So, I can't be told why, exactly, I'm being blamed for sockpuppetry? TheOldJacobite isn't the only user who has edit warred with me. Why would I suddenly decide to make a sock account when I've made numerous constructive contributions to the encyclopedia and have been here, in various forms, since around 2005?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, you may appeal this block if you wish at BASC. Elockid^(Boo!) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion about TheOldJacobite2 independent of Elockid. As he said, you are free to contact BASC. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And what is BASC going to do?--MoonMetropolis (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that you are definitely not assuming good faith here. Someone used an open proxy to impersonate someone, so it's automatically me? Open proxies are available for anyone to access. For all I know, the account may very well have been created by someone else with the intention to mislead admins into thinking that I created it. I know users who would have done such a thing.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you seem intent on wasting our time, I've revoked your talk page access. Elockid^(Boo!) 02:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toryumon Title Screen.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Toryumon Title Screen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:0-D Beat Drop.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:0-D Beat Drop.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emanuel and the Truth About Fishes Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Emanuel and the Truth About Fishes Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rugrats Pre-School Daze.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rugrats Pre-School Daze.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Father's Day Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Father's Day Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mute Witness DVD Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mute Witness DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Limite Poster.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Limite Poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Silip Daughters of Eve DVD Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Silip Daughters of Eve DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad Force listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bad Force. Since you had some involvement with the Bad Force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geek Maggot Bingo

The article Geek Maggot Bingo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film, with no independent 3rd party reviews.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Premutos: The Fallen Angel

The article Premutos: The Fallen Angel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews found during search.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Premutos DVD Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Premutos DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Geek Maggot Bingo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geek Maggot Bingo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek Maggot Bingo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mute Witness DVD Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mute Witness DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emanuelle in America DVD Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Emanuelle in America DVD Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Street Angel (1937 movie poster).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Street Angel (1937 movie poster).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)