User talk:AnimeDisneylover95

Welcome!

Hello, AnimeDisneylover95, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Characters of Kingdom Hearts. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeDisneylover95, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AnimeDisneylover95! 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! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Disappearance of Nagato Yuki-chan recorded by Bang Zoom?

Wait, did the credits confirm that The Disappearance of Nagato Yuki-chan was actually recorded by Bang Zoom! Entertainment? But, I did see the blog that Funimation posted that they said that Okratron 5000 is recording the series. DigiPen92 (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually The Disappearance of Nagato Yuki-chan was recorded in Los Angeles and directed by Todd Haberkorn, according to a tweet by Chris Sabat himself, Nagato Yuki-chan recorded in Los Angeles Todd Haberkorn directing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs)

Oh, that was strangely bit confusing that they mentioned it was recorded at California, but, the official blog mentions about Okratron 5000 was handling the dub?DigiPen92 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, fans of the series had to be sure since on the Funimation blog said Chris Sabat was voice directing until he corrected the fans that he's ADR producer, sometimes it's always double check before making the final conclusion.

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Edgerly, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Darkness, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (video game) and The Incredible Hulk (video game). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 30 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Tara Platt page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Nyuszika7H. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gravity Falls (season 1) without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Matsuri

Hi, just a heads up. If you edit any anime convention guest lists, please make sure to add a source or update the source already there if that's the one you use. Anime Matsuri in the past has had issues, and adding these sources make cleaning the article up easier. Thanks! Esw01407 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incase you noticed, they came from Animecons.com FYI.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't update the access date, how do editors or visitors know when these were added? We need to keep sources accurate. Esw01407 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Lang filmography

Hi, on the Lex Lang filmography, you can leave the crystalacids and btva entries in the row as they are sources that aren't generated by lex's resume/website. Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LAST STRAW: Treating the Voice Actors page and sources as not important just because it's like "IMDB"

OKAY, THAT'S THE LAST STRAW!!!! I'm sick and tired of ALL of you treating the voice actor pages and just hiding all of the reliable sources, especially the one who are credited in the end credits of their respective video games, "THEIR RESPECTIVE VIDEO GAMES". HINT, HINT, HINT, I don't know what in the world has gotten in with most of you those in particular: AngusWOOF, Hasteur, among others but I'm not going to continue standing and ARGUING WITH YOUR RELUCTANCE AND HESITANCE on hiding every known voice role, be it a video game, movie, or tv show. Because guess what, regardless if the credits have a source and you continue to dismiss them saying "it's not relevant" to them, shows you have no sense of taste and respect. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, would you rather have all the roles deleted as Hasteur is planning? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, then again why are you siding with him, no, no, no, no, not only that, WHY do you continue OMITTING most of the video game roles for most of the voice actors regardless if I'm not making it as another "IMDB dunmp" while I added in all of the reliable sources from the video games credits, Hmmmmm?

Still not pleased with you :( Hmmmm?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of wikipedia is to give a concise summary of the subject. In the context of Biographies, we're suppose to only include content where it it demonstrates a clear and significant reason for why it's included in our edited article. We don't put every list suspected/believed credit that an actor or director has ever tone. That's the role of IMDB. We list the jobs that are significant to their career with a link that goes out to the more complete list. If you want to include every guest role or background credit that any voice over actor ever did, you should go over to an Anime Wikkia or AniDB as you're not going to be happy with the currated content we use here. And yes, I was a consumer of Anime and know how to tell the difference between a role that impacts a actor's career and a role that is "background". Hasteur (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five words - "Not Impressed by the Change". Do what ever you like for the majority of you, but I'm still not pleased with most of those changes. :/--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is that siding with him? His side is to remove the whole thing and only keep ones like Spike from Cowboy Bebop. I've worked out a compromise in which his starring and recurring roles should be preserved. He has a huge body of work with major roles, especially in video games where he set a Guinness world record. If you noticed, many of the credits have been added back. If you are not impressed, complain to him and all the other editors who would rather remove the whole section rather than try to make it useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine, I was on the wrong track here tbh, but I'm not a fan that some of the reliable sources particularly the credits from a video game are omitted, regardless if they are mentioned on the actor's resume, website or video game credits itself.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AnimeDisneylover95: Hi there, I saw one of your topics and I know how you feel man cause when they deleted the Brianne Siddall article, i was devastated, but at the same time, i didn't give up hope, cause when it happened, the idea just came to me of bringing the article, and i realized that i can't do this alone, so if you're really feel that way on how voice actors page and sources should be treated, then help me bringing this article back, so that it won't go through this kind of neglect again, here's the link to the Brianne Siddall article, hope ya like what I've done to it so far and be willing to help out on this article, cause i truly need all the help that i can get, ya know! :) Norozco1 (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is the same situation as last time, only this time Leprof 7272 is diminishing and considering Facebook posts and Tweets asUnreliable sources. What is the matter with all of you. Don't you realize that every article and video game credits may not credit or even mention the voice actors, that why the tweets and Facebook post were placed here!!!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Sk8erPrince, you finally done it, cause of you you are now removing every additional voice from EVERY VOICE ACTOR that is made by YOU not wikipedia but by you, I just wanted to put reliable sources that were created, but now what I see here is a complete argumented mess all because every page should only contain notable roles and not additional/miscellaneous roles all because of your so called "consensus" that wikipedia is happening, so thanks a lot to all you naysayers, especially you Sk8erPrince!!! :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at ANi you may be interested in

See here [1] Legacypac (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an admin to block me, then do it, the reason I acted this way is that I feel very shocked and disapointed that Tweets from Twitter, and Facebook posts are not reliable to Wikipedia standards anymore, It's just frustrating seeing this happening--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and Facebook sources removal on Wikipedia.

Good grief, if the removal of roles claiming it's like IMDB wasn't bad enough, I can't believe it's shocking that Twitter and Facebook sources shouldn't be on Wikipedia. What the heck there were one of the few known sources where an actor/voice actor make a confirmation on a character/project they worked on!?!?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Facebook and Twitter have never been considered reliable in any way. Why you may ask? Because it is user generated material which does not go through any editorial scrutiny or factual checking. For example, I could go to Facebook and create an account posing as some celebrity and make a series of posts that have no relation to the reality of the situation. If Facebook was considered a reliable source then anyone could take my posts and use them in Wikipedia. If it is entered into a BLP this can place Wikipedia in legal jeopardy as it could be considered libel or defamation. Similarly with Twitter. I hope this makes sense.Blackmane (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Twitter and WP:FACEBOOK. Regarding Twitter, if the account is verified, then it can be used as WP:SELFPUB. Same with Facebook. However, the article should not rely entirely on such sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you are going to do this, well guess what I want to go on a STRIKE!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on there AnimeDisneylover95, just because what AnguaWOOF said is true doesn't mean you have to go on a strike, look dude, I know it seems bad to you, but look on the bright side, it'll make much easier to find sources, so just do us all a favor, and just let this go, ok good buddy! :-)Norozco1 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for my rant, it's just I didn't like how Kind Tennis Fan just made it up saying that Twitter and Facebook sources aren't aloud, yet they can still be used if the actor/actress confirms they are involved in this project so sorry for my outburst.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is the same situation as last time, only this time Leprof 7272 is diminishing and considering Facebook posts and Tweets as Unreliable sources. What is the matter with all of you. Don't you realize that every online article and video game credits may not credit or even mention the voice actors, that why the tweets and Facebook post were placed here!!!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Keranen in Naruto

On the Naruto DVD, if they list the English credits as a DVD extra track or attach it to the end of the episode, you can cite that to confirm she voices in the show for the episodes. Thanks for providing that screenshot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that specific episodes of where she voiced do not need to be listed unless they are going to be cited to credits. It is assumed she voices that character for the duration of the series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point on what I put down, the character only appeared and spoke in episodes 265-266, 285, and 340. To be frank, I don't see the reason just to omit the episodes since the character doesn't appear frequently in the series and the credits for the English dub episodes that air on Viz.com and on the DVD are in Japanese. Besides, If you look on the bonus features that are in the last discs on the respective Naruto Shippuden DVD boxsets, it does include the English credits for the voice actors voicing their respective character(s).--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the Naruto Shippuden DVD boxset shows the credit as "Ep. 265-266, 285, 340"? Then cite that with cite AV media Bonus features. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

empty note on Stephanie Sheh page

Hi, AnimeDisneylover95. I noticed in this edit, you created a footnote using Template:efn, and it's empty. I thought I would ask you rather than remove it: {{efn|name="streaming"}} - Paul2520 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

finding confirmations or reliable sources for this article

@AnimeDisneylover95: I need you help on finding confirmations or reliable sources for this article of Janice Kawaye, this is the discussion that we've be talking about for sometime now: Videos of Janice's game roles

And here's the twitter topic that I've started not too long ago: Confirmation search

But now this is becoming more serious, he can't hold these as he called it, "rumored game credits", any longer cause as he said, 'I do not believe Wikipedians who cannot find reliable sources of information', and we have to save these game credits right away, before hey disappear from the aricle, forever, so tell me, will you help me on this?! :) NJOrozco 20:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Enough with the Accusations at me

Please stop accusing me of edit warring TheFarix, AlextheWhovian and AussieLegend, if you want to talk with me, then talk on your OWN Talk pages, but that's enough of you for almost making this day a bigger mess.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AnimeDisneylover95. I looked over the articles where you were engaged in a content dispute, and I noticed you mentioned in an edit summary that you weren't edit warring because you didn't break WP:3RR. This is incorrect. Please be aware that repeatedly reverting, even if done less than three times in 24 hours, can lead to your account being blocked for edit warring. The three-revert rule is a bright line rule, but it is not an exhaustive description of what constitutes edit warring. This isn't any form of accusation, just something you should be aware of for the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no I don't believe it, besides this is on them for causing my behavior and my near suspension, not me!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are not in control of your actions. We have not forced you to edit war or personally attack other editors. Do not put the blame on us. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides should stop discussing each other's behavioral issues unless making a report, as it isn't helpful at the moment. Having said that, AnimeDisneylover, it doesn't really matter if you believe it or not. All administrators, myself included, believe it because that's what's written at WP:EW. See the last line of the lead there. You appear to have stopped edit warring for the moment, which I do appreciate, but if it starts again you'll be the editor blocked, not other editors for "causing [your] behavior". You're responsible for your own actions, not anyone else. I'm glad that you care about the encyclopedia and are trying to improve it. I encourage you to keep doing so, subject to the relevant rules regarding user conduct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time that the majority of you need to stop discussing and pointing fingers at me in regards to myself violating "three revert rule" and "edit warring" even If I don't do it for the last 24 hours. So no, I don't appreciate the actions these admins had been given me in the last week and giving me the sore thumb. So personally this has gone far enough for them and especially to myself.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore them

Hey, don't listen to Sro23 for what he said on Homechallange55's talk page. You weren't violating anything at all, so just ignore him. I hate putting up with those kind of people too, I don't put up with there bad personalities. So I'm on your side. 2600:1000:B026:CB61:58B5:6C2B:2A6C:65CA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/AnimeDisneylover95, 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.

Feinoha ^Talk 03:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is clearly a misunderstanding, I never had used another account and sockpuppet on Homechallenge's page.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case withdrawn, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Feinoha ^Talk 00:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, AnimeDisneylover95. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bottersnikes and Gumbles (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Chase. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

You should take a small break

If you are frustrated then step away from Wikipedia for a bit, the ANI discussion is going to take a bit for editors to weigh in. Doing this will make it so you can contribute with a clear head. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel bewildered to see you guys continue to bring back this issue ("additional voices and minor roles for voice actors are unnecessary" "only notable roles" are allowed) once again and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a favorite character that had a minor role that x does a voice for? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Reporting

I just wanted to stop by and echo the above statements. The fact that you had an ANI case opened on you this quickly was erroneous at best. Give it some time. You aren't in trouble, and it is doubtful anything negative will happen to you. I hope this doesn't sour your editing experience. Sometimes people get too over zealous and don't see the forest for the trees. --Tarage (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel bewildered to see this issue continue to being brought back up once again, and whether or not reliable sources (e.g. articles, end credits of a movie, show & video games, resumes, and convention bios) are necessary for these voice actors?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janice & Brianne Image deletion problem

ADL95, I need your help to back me up on this 2 situations that I've gotten myself into, & it's this. Janice & Brianne's Photos are going to be deleted from the article, so please give them your statement on keeping these images on the Wikipedia common, here are the links to the reportable debates:

[2]
[3]

Hope that you can back up on this, cause your voice matters. :( Norozco1 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, AnimeDisneylover95. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cristina Vee. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please try to refrain from engaging in an edit war, have you tried using the articles talk page? House1090 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If their is ONE user who is being disruptive and constantly reverting edits over because of a small thing it's MizukaS.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be the both of you, see here. Best, House1090 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was both of us that started it, frankly it was MizukaS who as of now, continues to justify that "Tweets" and "Additional voices" are not allowed all because of just one tweet. Even when I explain to him on the talk page, he refuses to accept it and continues to justify that Tweets" and "Additional voices" are not allowed and saying they will side with the WP:RS because of it.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that message looks like an explanation? Seems incredibly demanding to me. MizukaS (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's refrain from bickering and move on. Try to not be in contact unless it is in the article's talk page. Best, House1090 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer my question at WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, to NeilN and House1090 I'm not doing most of the bickering nor was I the one doing MOST of the edit wars, I just want to the tweets to be included as MS had justified that "Tweets" and "Additional voices" are not allowed all because "they're aren't valid". Can you just move on and stop drawing the conclusions that it was ALL OF US and NOT just one person.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, I'm Narutolovehinata5. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Veronica Taylor that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. While I know that you're doing your best in editing, please learn to keep your cool and assume good faith. We're all contributing to the encyclopedia, so outbursts like that aren't advisable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank with you, I'm not going to forgive the following users: DRMIES, Sergecross73, IJBall, AngusWOOF and especially MIZUKAS for choosing NOT to have Additional voices on the actor's pages. They still think that they are like IMDB which is NOT true, and I'm sorry but it still continues to dishearten me how incredibly cowardly they refuse to have addtional voices regardless of end credit source and resume all because of an "RFC" from this Discussion post. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your cool. It's fine if you disagree with them, it's fine if you don't agree with the consensus. But Wikipedia is not a battleground with winners and losers. If you've "lost" a discussion, just move on. Attacking other editors for whatever reason is unconstructive and does more harm than good to everyone. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world is a stance of "additional voice don't need to be documented in an encyclopedia" classified as "cowardly". That makes zero sense. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. Don't ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Grow up. Don't ping me anymore." I think YOU who need's to grow up, Drmies!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense either. If you've got something of substance to express, say it. If you're just pinging people to whine about them disagreeing with you, stop it immediately, or you're going to receive a block for disruptive editing. Complaining without substance isn't going to change anyone's minds, especially with the discussion already ending with a clear consensus. Your talk page seems to indicate you've been complaining about this for years. You need to get over it. Sergecross73 msg me 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to slap another warning on this page--there's plenty of em already. But there is no doubt that admins will see, sooner or later, edit summaries like this one, which are childish and pointy (look it up: WP:POINT). Drmies (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5, DRMIES, Sergecross73, IJBall, AngusWOOF and especially MIZUKAS That's enough with ALL of you bullying me and threatening me with a ban. You want my of substance to express, I'll say it: "I want Additional voices to be added on the voice actors pages. Yes you have no interest on doing another discussion since the previous discussion already ended with a "clear consensus", frankly I feel that undermining the pages if the vast majority have been put with reliable sources.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental reversion

Please ignore the reversion comment on the Characters of Kingdom Hearts article. It has nothing to do with your contribution, which has been re-added. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avengers Assemble (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AnimeDisneylover95. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, AnimeDisneylover95. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock October 2020

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AnimeDisneylover95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A year has passed since I was blocked on Wikipedia and 6 months have passed since I set foot on the talk page. The 1 year along with 6 months away from Wikipedia helped that from my time off from this site, in general, and grow as a person. I was blocked last year due to disrupting the tables from within the WP:Filmography section, along with disagreeing with the majority of you on how items were set up, now 1 year later I am willing to change for the better on the site and not get upset with most of you. Yes, The majority remain hesitant to trust me once again for what happened, but I'm not going to make anymore disruptive editing, no fights on any section within Wikipedia and I want to resume editing on the site, whether it's adding in reliable sources and especially punctuation corrections--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You've been blocked for a full year, and you claim to have learned your lesson. I think it's time we take you at your word and give you another chance to contribute here in a collaborative and productive manner. Please understand that this is almost certainly your last chance. Any behavior that is even remotely similar to what originally got you blocked will quickly result in another long-term or permanent block. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 06:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just made my unblock request 2 days ago so if any of you have a chance to look at it hope you guys review it thanks again.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Davey2010, I made my unblock request about a week ago explaining my situation why I want to be unblocked but I haven't received a response?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Scottywong: For giving me another chance on this site and unblocking me. I was concerned my unblock request would've been rejected or ignored since I waited for 3 weeks for a response on this site even when I logged out without editing after posting my request.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

I recently unblocked you from an indefinite block that lasted just over a year. You were blocked for a "repetitive, tendentious, disruptive pattern of editing". I very clearly let you know that you would quickly be reblocked if you resumed the behavior that got you blocked in the first place. And, here we are, a week or two after your unblock, and I'm already receiving complaints that you're behaving disruptively, adding "voice actor" to the infobox of various actor bios, despite multiple editors on multiple talk pages clearly opposing this addition due to its redundancy. This is identical to behavior you exhibited before your block. While you could be re-blocked for this alone, I've decided instead to impose a topic ban on you: you are no longer permitted to label actors as "voice actors", "voice artists", or anything remotely related to those terms, whether it be in an infobox or in the prose of an article, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. You are also not permitted to start or contribute to discussions on talk pages whose primary topic has to do with whether or not an actor is a voice actor or a voice artist. This topic ban has an indefinite duration. If you violate the topic ban, I will reinstate your indefinite block. Additionally, any other evidence of repetitive, tendentious, and/or disruptive editing that is unrelated to voice actors will result in a reblock. Please acknowledge that you understand. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 02:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: Does adding sources or adding in a show of said Actor's page also be counted as part of the Topic Ban? I'd also blame @Grandpallama: for ratting me out.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, adding sources is not part of the topic ban. The ban is on adding content to articles that identifies them as a voice actor, voice artist, or anything along those lines. It doesn't matter who "ratted you out"; if their complaints weren't valid, I wouldn't be here right now. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 04:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottywong: What about If I remove "voice actor/voice artist" on some of the actor or actresses pages is that also considered part of the Topic Ban?!?!?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little over a year ago, you were indef blocked for persistently making disruptive and annoying edits. I unblocked you to give you a second chance. Shortly after unblocking, you went on a bizarre crusade to ensure that certain actors were labeled as "voice actors", or that other actors were not labeled as "voice actors". Instead of simply immediately re-blocking you, I gave you one more chance, and tried to give you a way to contribute here in a way that would not result in you being blocked. As a condition of not re-blocking you, I asked you to no longer label actors as "voice actors", "voice artists", or anything remotely related to those terms. Recently, you made this edit, a clear an obvious violation of the terms that you acknowledged and agreed to. Therefore, I have reinstated your indefinite block. I will not be unblocking you again, but you're free to make an unblock request and see if there is any other admin that is willing to unblock and babysit you. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 00:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request December 2020

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).

AnimeDisneylover95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not asking for my forgiveness and It's doubtful that anyone will give me any more chances on this site again but for the last 3-4 days I have been making many different edits for the Christmas and Holiday programming blocks all based on the latest Christmas or Holiday Schedule blocks this year. Of course, even with these edits I just made I need to do more than just that on this site, however for the last 3-4 weeks I haven't been arguing nor making disruptive edit wars with anyone or on any other pages, plus I can be resourceful on updating the holiday blocks since usually, the specials change every year. Please I know this won't reconsider but I am a dedicated hard-worker and while I get upset on changes I don't lose my marbles over something and learn to move on and roll with the punches--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:03, 26 December 2020 (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.

To fuck up your last chance is worse enough but then to fuck up ScottyWongs last chance (which FYI he didn't have to do) is incredibly stupid beyond words. Return in December 2021 ADL and please don't fuck it up as you may have your talkpage access revoked. Hope you have a Happy and Healthy New Year. –Davey2010^Talk 20:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010:I don't have to wait another full long year (December 2021) besides the edit I made was a misunderstanding and unrelated to the others edits where I kept adding "voice actor" on the actors pages and I haven't even been fixated on this site for weeks. I can just do another unblock in 5-6 months time and explain why I won't do again.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair you don't however taking a full year will go in your favour as opposed to keep coming back every 6 months essentially repeating the same unblock request. Given you've only been unblocked and then re-blocked almost immediately chances of your June unblock succeeding will be slim although taking a year away isn't the be all and end all of blocks. Anyway I wish you all the best for 2021 mate, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again @Davey2010:, I'm not going to wait another long year like last time. Secondly, their's no way on what you said to me that my unblock request will be rejected again once I return 5-6 months later.

Trust me, when I make an unblock request 5-6 months from now it's going to be what literally happened and why was I blocked without repeating the same unblock response over and over and heed to Rosguill advice which is:

understand what I have been blocked for,
I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
Iwill make useful contributions instead.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock July 2021

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).

AnimeDisneylover95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

7 months had passed on my actions on Wikipedia and what I did on the Paget Brewster article page and literally all of the different actor's pages by adding "voice actor" on their infoboxes (particularly those that do a balance of on-camera and voice-over) was entirely wrong. I was blocked back in December 2020 for not adhering to the advice by not adding "voice actors" on the infoboxes on various actors on Wikipedia and I broke the trust again. Moving forward I will do useful contributions, no fighting, no justifications and especially making arguments towards all of you when making heated disagreements I am going to so beneficial contributions and especially adding in reliable sources on this site without getting into a heated argument over simple things. I respect many of you remain hesistant to turst me following December's fiasco but moving forward I'm not going to make the same mistakes on the site again.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Editor fails to actually offer even a viable reason on why we should believe their unblock request this time given how they managed to through away both of their chances last time so quickly...let alone any actual evidence for believing that reason. About the only thing I'd be inclined accept as evidence in this circumstance would be a significant productive editing history during the next six months at another project (e.g. simple english wiki, fr-wiki, en-wikitionary etc etc) without even a trace of either the problems we've seen here, or new problems. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2021 (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.

Unblock December 2021

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).

AnimeDisneylover95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A year had passed following my block on this site for not adhering to the advice by not adding "voice actors" on the infoboxes and on the Paget Brewster article page. I understand the majority are apprehensive and skeptical on unblocking me again and trusting me thrice after the previous two times I've been blocked, but throughout the remainder of 2021, I focused on other ventures and not remain obsessive on Wikipedia. I'm going to provide more useful contributions with most of you and when I go into a heated disagreement I am going to deescalate things. Moving forward in 2022 I'm not going to make the same previous two mistakes on the site again like what happened last year I'm going to be responsible and humble and I want to enjoy continue editing on the site, whether it's adding in reliable sources and punctuation corrections and especially not fighting with most of you over simple small edits on many different pages.

Decline reason:

I see no path forward here. You've previously promised to stop your disruptive behaviour, only to demonstrate you are unwilling or incapable of following through your promises. Yamla (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2022 (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.

Unblock January 2022

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AnimeDisneylover95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very very sorry to the vast majority of you for making a problem on Wikipedia. Throughout 2021 since my December 2020 block for my disruptive editing I learned to grow as a person and not become impulsive. Granted this is my 3rd-4th appeal request I have made and I understand none of you are willing to trust me, however, I have moved on from most of these past behaviors and want to be a better well-manered user on this site. I'm not doing this to make it a playground and not make the same mistakes with most of you again. I learned what I did was wrong and for future steps on my part, I will:

- My behavior will not be a problem with any of you in the Future
- not going against "consensus" ANYWHERE on wikipedia
- No edit warring ANYWHERE on Wikipidia
- Ask for resolutions (even if most of the proposals will get rejected, which happens).
- No doing WP:BATTLEGROUND with EVERYONE and anywhere
- Learn to have myself shut the f**K up and listen from the users when they reason with me
- Move on from what I did and learn from the mistakes, as it wastes time.
- Use the dispute resolution to resolve conflicts
- Use the 1RR would mean that you could revert once per day.

Look, I know this list Is not going to reconsider the admins decision to unblock me cause "what's done, is done", but I'm ready to commit to those changes including those you provide me earlier you provided to me and My behavior will not be a problem with any of you moving forward in 2022 especially when fighting over something that is a waste of time to myself and to the rest of the users and I am going to keep my promise for real and not break it EVER.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see a pathway forward here. You have made promises before. I think your last avenue of appeal at this point is now going to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2022 (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.

@331dot: This is a mistake and I'm innocent. I'm not going to make those mistakes like what happened back in December 0f 2020. What I did was wrong and I stopped staying away from this site for an entire year and explained the reasons why I was blocked and won't do it moving forward. It makes no sense that I contact ArbCom and expect a response weeks to months and have it as a trial as a last resort to prove my innocence when you continue to justify that "there is no pathway moving forward" when I'm speaking the truth.

I just want to delete my account--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible, for both technical and legal reasons, to delete an account, but you are welcome to stop requesting unblock and abandon your account. Note that you could not edit under any other account or IP address until this block is removed, because the block is on you as a person, not just your account. I know of no reason an email to ArbCom would take months to get a reply to. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Okay then how does the ArbCom work because like I said before, I stopped staying away from this site for an entire year and explained the reasons why I was blocked and what I won't be doing again moving forward. Please I'm speaking the truth and I put most of my problems and issues behind me but it's frustrating when I keep getting the "there is no pathway moving forward" from you, NosebagBear and Yamla when that's not who I am anymore, I just want to edit this site without going back to the same mistakes that got me in trouble and blocked twice, I'm willing to change.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are familiar with the story The Boy Who Cried Wolf and the moral lesson it teaches, but that applies to your situation in that once you repeatedly break promises to improve your behavior, it is difficult to believe other promises to do the same. In any event, I don't think any administrator will be willing to unblock you at this time, so that leaves you with contacting ArbCom. I don't know the specifics but I assume someone will review your email and get back to you. There really isn't anything more to do here. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I heard of it but that's not who I am anymore moving forward. Look I just hate being "blacklisted" from this site forever, and their are pages that are not updated due to punctuations or lack of sources and while they aren't enough to reconsider I don't want to be blocked from wikipedia forever or eternity.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not "blacklisted" for eternity but it is difficult to believe your promises and that's pretty much all you have offered. Maybe in a year or so things might be different, or maybe you can convince ArbCom to unblock you, but there is nothing more to do here. As such, I am removing talk page access. If you decide to not contact ArbCom, you may use WP:UTRS in a year or so. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #69780

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]