User talk:Дейноніх

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Quetzalcoatl (Godzilla) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Quetzalcoatl (Godzilla), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Дейноніх! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Jurassic Park (film), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @DonIago: Why isn't Jurassic Park giant monster film? --Дейноніх (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the dinosaurs are normal size? Do you have a source that describes JP as a giant monster film? Does the article itself currently describe the film as a giant monster film, with a source? DonIago (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DonIago: Dinosaurs in the film aren't oversized, but they are giant. I haven't source, but it's logical, that Tyrannosaurus and Brachiosaurus are giant. Also Jurassic World is mentioned in the list of giant monster films.--Дейноніх (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I find interesting there is that JW is listed but JP is not (and there are different dinosaurs between the two films, so that could have been the tipping point). It may be logical, but there have been genre shifts in franchise films before, and regardless, we need a source to satisfy verifiability concerns. Please don't re-add the category unless you can find a source stating that JP is considered a giant monster film. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your addition to Jurassic World, as I don't think any editors will agree that the Microsoft Store is an appropriate source to use to determine a film's genre. Regardless, I doubt you'll be able to form a consensus that the film is primarily a giant monster film, but you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page. Cheers and Happy Holidays. DonIago (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Hello again! Sorry for disturbing you but I found some sources. However, I don't know, are they reliable or not. Here they are:

1. https://collider.com/best-giant-monster-movies-that-arent-godzilla/
2. https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/a-history-of-hollywoods-best-and-worst-giant-monster-movies
3. https://onmilwaukee.com/articles/fivegiantmonstermovies

Please, can you check them? Thanks in advance. Also I want to say about Microsoft Store. It really can be not reliable but that's official. --Дейноніх (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I found one more source, which is already referred on Wikipedia (I mean a site is referred, non an article): https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-10-greatest-giant-monster-movies-of-all-time-724266440 . --Дейноніх (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found even more sources, and I added three JP films and two JW films with these sources to this list. --Дейноніх (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; it's been a busy week. I don't have problems with any of those sources, though I'm unfamiliar with #3. Thanks for understanding my concern, and I hope your 2021 is off to a great start! DonIago (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Thank you very much! I hope your 2021 is off to a great start too! ;) --Дейноніх (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Hi! Sorry, I didn't understand, why you reverted my edit on Jurassic World? I added a source. --Дейноніх (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:FILMLEAD. I think we should be listing one or maybe two genres, but adding "giant monster film", even if it's sourced, to me is unneeded bloat. You're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page if you'd like other editors to weigh in. DonIago (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Okay, I understand. Thanks for the answer. Then how about "science fiction giant monster film"? --Дейноніх (talk) 08:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not based on how Allmovie classifies the film.[1] DonIago (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: Sorry, probably I don't know something, does this mean anything? Also it isn't named "adventure film" on Allmovie, but does this mean something? --Дейноніх (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked whether we should list "giant monster film" as a genre in the lead of the article. Allmovie is generally considered a reliable source for film genre classifications; as it doesn't list that as a primary genre of the film but does list three other primary genres, my feeling is that we should be using those and disregarding the sub-genres. However, other sites may have different classifications. As I noted earlier, if you feel it's important that "giant monster film" be listed as a genre, you should bring it up at the article's talk page along with a corroborating source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. No, it isn't very important for me. I just asked. Thanks! --Дейноніх (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a future television series. In the absence of a specific guideline about future television series, the guideline about future films is that they are normally not considered notable. If there is a specific reason why this series is considered notable prior to broadcast, please explain in an AFC comment or on the draft talk page when resubmitting.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Godzilla Singular Point and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Godzilla Singular Point, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: This isn't my draft, but this article must be created, because Godzilla: Singular Point is mentioned in many independent sources, for example:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

There are hundreds of articles and videos about Godzilla: Singular Point! --Дейноніх (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ReaderofthePack was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This seems to be based on announcements, without there being any true indepth (or at least indepth enough) coverage of the production process. If you can find coverage that production has begun then that would help establish how it passes notability guidelines. While it's not a film, WP:NFF would still generally apply here.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Godzilla Singular Point and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Godzilla Singular Point, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Дейноніх,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Godzilla: Battle Royale for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Paul ❬talk❭ 19:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Heritage (2020 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NFILM and completely fails WP:GNG

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. Spiderone 11:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heritage (2020 film) 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/Heritage (2020 film) 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. Spiderone 14:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Godzilla: Battle Royale, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godzilla: Battle Royale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla Battle Royale.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) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Godzilla Heritage.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) 18:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in the production section a line is from wikizilla and so is the teaser poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E003:1C5A:EC01:4C75:C280:9F5C:259C (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2406:E003:1C5A:EC01:4C75:C280:9F5C:259C: If there's only one line from Wikizilla, you can just rewrite it. Teaser poster isn't from Wikizilla, it's an official poster. --Дейноніх (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of films featuring giant monsters, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A film's tagline is not a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How it isn't a reliable source? It is an official film's tagline! --Дейноніх (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Film studios are not considered professional judges of a film's genre. Check AFI, or BFI, or AllMovie, which are considered acceptable. Obviously film taglines can say whatever they want; they don't necessarily reflect objective reality. DonIago (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Godzilla-related media has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Armegon (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Toei Tokusatsu Universe 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/Toei Tokusatsu Universe 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.

Armegon (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend I have something to tell you. ToFuBilYOyw (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You can write that here. Дейноніх (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like horror films? ToFuBilYOyw (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them, yes. Дейноніх (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help with a couple of articles? ToFuBilYOyw (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what I can do. Can you please tell me which ones? Дейноніх (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. That user was evading a block, and this new account has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Дейноніх (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm sorry if your confused it's just my friend wanted to ask you if you could restore 2010s and 2020s for the horror film article that's all he wanted. MeWuYi (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but considering the circumstances, I don't think I will do it.

@C.Fred: Please, see if this is the same person. Дейноніх (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they've been blocked also. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if he was any trouble. MeWuYi (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've moved your draft article to User:Дейноніх/Sandbox/Kamen Rider vs. Shocker (you missed the colon). — Voice of Clam 17:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm sorry for missing it. Дейноніх (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Superhero film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toei. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Ultraman Monster Movie Feature.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) 17:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn’t needed. 71.251.208.56 (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sorry, but it's your vandalism that isn't needed. Stop doing that and have a nice day. Дейноніх (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of Japanese monsters to List of films featuring dinosaurs‎, a legitimate article on films with dinosaurs, has been reverted a couple of times now. Please state why you feel they should be added on the talk page. Fire breathing or super turtles are not legitimate dinosaurs or their Paleozoic cousins. The article can stretch pretty far to contain creatures of the cenozoic time period, but fictitious mechanical monsters and fire breathing 400 foot tall giants are not what readers are looking for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm thankful you're open for a good discussion. First of all, as was mentioned in the reference of the article itself, Gamera films that were added there feature Gyaos, who was mentioned to be a pterosaur (specifically a part of Rhamphorhynchoidea) in the movie it first appeared, Gamera vs. Gyaos. As mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, not only dinosaur films but pterosaur films are also included to the list. Gamera is without a doubt, not a dinosaur, therefore Gamera films in which Gyaos doesn't appear weren't added. On the other hand, Godzilla was, is and will always be a dinosaur. The page references notable source which confirms that, and I'm sure you may find tens of other third-party sources. Please be aware that as mentioned in Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah, Godzilla is a mutated dinosaur. You're free to think whatever you want, but Godzilla is always known as a dinosaur. Your argument that it's a fictional character doesn't work because that changes absolutely nothing. There's only a limited number of films in which Godzilla isn't a dinosaur, most notably Godzilla (1998) and Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters. However, even in those movies Godzilla has a dinosaur-like appearance and therefore falls into the category a reader is interested in. Motif of dinosaurs is very popular and widely used in kaiju and tokusatsu movies. All mentioned films were in the list for a very long time, because, as was already mentioned, it's a common sense. In any case, a removal of properly sourced content from pages because of the personal opinion isn't welcomed. Thank you for starting this discussion calmly which is a rare thing in Wikipedia. Дейноніх (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this comment (or some semblance of it) to the article talk page so others can comment there. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already linked it, if that's not enough you can do it yourself. As I said, I will search for help in another place. Дейноніх (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fyunck(click). I noticed that you recently removed content from List of films featuring dinosaurs without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not remove templates. There is a conversation ongoing where it is being discussed Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one whose actions you just described, not me. «I noticed that you recently removed content from List of films featuring dinosaurs without adequately explaining why.» Haha. Дейноніх (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please be careful. You appear to be a valued editor on the Japanese Monster articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiddo, go play Minecraft or watch some screaming YouTubers. Wikipedia isn't your school where you go around bullying everyone. It's not a place for you. Дейноніх (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:List of films featuring dinosaurs. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. That's twice now. I didn't report the first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not personal attacks, that's facts. Only trolls act like this. Feel free to «report» it. Дейноніх (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they are looking at it and your last post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice. Дейноніх (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have some things I have to take care of. Please, feel free to write anything you want and have a good night/day. Дейноніх (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Дейноніх, if you call another user a "kiddo", "troll" or call another user's good faith edit "vandalism" again you will be sanctioned. WP:NPA is policy and continuous disregard for it is disruptive. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Дейноніх, I want to reinforce the warning Isabelle Belsto gave you above. Personal attacks of any kind are contrary to policy, and a false accusation of vandalism is a personal attack. Content disputes among good faith editors are notvandalism. In addition, edit warring is forbidden. Cullen328 (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content isn't good faith edit. It's vandalism. The user writes such big nonsense I don't believe he's not a troll. You're currently attacking a victim, me, who tried to resolve this calmly and respectfully, explaining everything and following the rules. The user's behaviour simply can't be taken seriously and I'm speaking facts. Feel free to block me, this way I won't have possibility to participate in this toxic community's activities. Дейноніх (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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

This is a self requested block asked for defiantly. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you seem unable to collaborate productively at this time, as evidenced by the utter triviality of the content you are fighting so vigorously about. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a nice day! Дейноніх (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'd like to continue work on my sandbox, as well as add information to other pages Дейноніх (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2023 (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.