User talk:Harryhenry1

Welcome!

More information Getting Started, Getting Help ...

Hello, Harryhenry1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Close

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2007-2008). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. You have reverted edits that are applying the policy WP:COLOR and against the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Colour, to make colours used in infoboxes WCAG 2 AAA Compliant, as per the list at Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination. Such reverts may be viewed as vandalistic, and you may be warned and/or banned if you go against policy. Please inform yourself before reverting and warning falsely. Alex|The|Whovian 08:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit of the subject series, per:

• Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Difference between revisions

Your note: Can you give some sources as to who's used this alternate title?

Did you try Google?!? I did and here are some prime examples:

• [Amazon] Diary Of A Wimpy Kid - Greg Heffley's Journal
• [Books-a-Million] Diary Of A Wimpy Kid - Greg Heffley's Journal
• [Bibliocommons] Diary of A Wimpy Kid - Greg Heffley's Journal

Apart from anything, the sub-title is the only clear way to distinguish the fist book from the series of the first name.

Does this compute?  :)

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. This is just a heads up about an editnotice request that I've put up here: Template_talk:Editnotices/Page/Toontown_Online#Template-protected_edit_request_on_8_January_2016. Please feel free to revise this if you have any improvements to make. Also, you're doing a great job of maintaining the article, keep it up NottNott talk|contrib 20:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought a lot of pages have a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoxMcCloudsWife (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really approve of Trivia sections, since the site feels that the info seen in trivia sections is better placed into the rest of the article. Here are the full details:WP:TRIVIA Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you reverted the edit of mine on Talk:Data Design Interactive. In case you didn't know, talk pages are meant to hold dicussions that are to improve the article, however, this talk page is filled with the company's CEO Stewart Green posting why he knows everything and disagrees with the content of other, therefore no sign of improvement. On top, everything is only handeled by random anonymous users, only 3 comments are actually by real users (two of them by you), whichfor I went to delete the content. It is the same as it happened to Talk:Lego Island, where a lot of off-topic conversations and biasing went on, where removals were undone by another anonymous user all the time. I would prefer if we had this content removed, so tell me if you disagree. Lordtobi (✉) 10:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not just collapse the discussions instead of outright deleting them?Harryhenry1 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Because collapsing is for discussions to be archived. These discussions are off the guidelines and therefore content to be deleted; we do not want to archive disputed discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 20:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my edit on Facebook for no reason? Pranish|^Message 01:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for not giving a reason first. The reason I reverted that was because Mark Zuckerberg's name had already been linked to in the infobox.Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine... but as far as I know, there's no problem adding another wikiLink Pranish|^Message 01:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering how close the two names are in terms of space between them, there's not much point linking to the same name again. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but it looks awkward Key People : Mark Zuckerberg and no link! Pranish|^Message 05:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1:: Feel free to add your name under the "members" list! Thanks :) → The Pancakeof Heaven! 13:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Steven Universe: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why have you been putting screenshots from Steven Universe episodes in the infobox, and moving the promotional art to the rest of the article? Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TV Episodes infoboxes usually countain a screenshot, typically to illustrate a key moment or a key element in the article. In the case of "The Answer", it wasn't even a concept art that was used in the infobox but the cover of the book adaptation, which means that the only articles that originally had concept art in their infoboxes were "Mr. Greg" and "Mindful Education". The reason I replaced them, outside of making it similar to other articles, is because I believed that the screenshots I chose were more relevant to the content of the episode, or could be used to illustrate something important about it. In "Mr. Greg", it was the fact that the characters are performing a song (to highlight that it is a musical episode) and also to show that they wore suits for most of it and explain why. In "Mindful Education", I throught that the picture was more relevant of the episode's story and message, but was also showing a key moment that was worth explaining with a visual support since it is a visual scene without any actual dialogue. Hope those reasons are good enough, I just wanted to improve the articles. --Hyliad (d), 13:00, 1 march 2017 (CEST)

Thanks for uploading File:Elimination Arcade Flyer.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) 17:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the change on the Mark Felton talk page. I don't understand what was happening but I couldn't get the page to format correctly, I guess you noticed that too. I don't know if it was something that I introduced into the page or some other formatting. In any event that page is way too long, I guess someone should start a bot on archiving it. Regards,  Spintendo  05:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

You reverted my edits in Ron DeSantis article without a proper explanation. All you wrote was "rv biased edits". Firstly, it's not bias, those were facts, and I pinned reliable sources for them. Also stop putting "right-wing" in Maine and Pennsylvania Republican parties' articles. They are not sourced. I will have to report you, due to your sitewide edit wars Udehbwuh (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The additions to DeSantis don't seem to have been made in good faith, it's not something a nonpartisan editor would've done. Plenty of detail in infoboxes aren't sourced either, since it's the same information that'll be sourced in the article, so why try to erase the descriptor of being right-wing? Unless there's a new consensus I'm unaware of, I don't think anyone would object to the description of republicans are right-wing. For that matter, threatening me like that is uncalled for and my reverts can't be called edit wars anyway. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1 what do you mean "something a nonpartisan editor would've done"? Firstly, we rely on what reliable sources say. Not on someone's opinions or assessment. It's a fact, that the unemployment rate in Florida is lower than 2%. It's not an opinion. It's data from the US Labor Statistics. And what about biden's words, it's literally his statement, it's not like i made it up, it's what he himself said. So I don't understand, what you are talking. I provided reliable sources for each edit I made.

And political positions in infoboxes are often sourced, like here The Guardian, here Democratic Party (United States) and here Republican Party (United States). And again, it's not like "I don't think anyone would object...", you need to provide reliable sources for your claims. Udehbwuh (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

What Biden said about DeSantis is meaningless. I'm not denying he said it, but politicians saying something nice about their ideological opponents is a common, and not very noteworthy thing to include. The only reason you'd have something like that added to an article is to make DeSantis look better.

And as for the unemployment statistics, again not denying those numbers but it's not even the lowest one per state in the country. It seems to just be there to, once again, make DeSantis look better. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think these are not "noteworthy things to include"? Where in wikipedia guideline and rules is it said? Please, read this WP: Original research Udehbwuh (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know what original research is. This isn't that. There's certainly room to argue about what is or isn't notable to include, but again I can't see any reason why to mention Biden's comments on DeSantis other than this specific agenda. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It's fact, that DeSantis was praised by both sides. It's not pushing an agenda. I'm just reporting, what reliable sources say Udehbwuh (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, not denying what they said. Generic bipartisan support moments like this happen all the time, but are they actually noteworthy to include in an article? Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harryhenry- when you revert someone's edits please add a summary or drop a line in the talk page. I updated the talk page with more explanation behind my cut when I made it, so you could pop something there. My edit was not a political matter either way.

I've done some extensive research and the credits for all the Walking With miniseries episodes only credit the BBC as a whole, not the Natural History Unit or the Science Unit. I don't believe the Science Unit was a dedicated division until after the BBC Worldwide/Studios merger in 2018, but I don't know for sure. The source only labels it as the BBC anyway. Luigitehplumber (talk) 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, my apologies. I was unable to access the source in question. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Any particular reason you are patrolling every place i edit or post on a talk page? Holydiver82 (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard regarding state of Sweet Baby Inc. article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Sweet Baby Inc.".The discussion is about the topic Sweet Baby Inc..

This notification was issued considering your recent contributions to the related talk page.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Moon darker (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Monster House (film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I was removing and clarifying the plot from previous attempts to make it longer. I'll still put in the warning about not adding an exact date for any future editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Captain Underpants and the Invasion of the Incredibly Naughty Cafeteria Ladies from Outer Space (and the Subsequent Assault of the Equally Evil Lunchroom Zombie Nerds), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spaceship. 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) 05:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we're getting trolled on that talk page. Instead of responding, I would start removing general questions like this one as disruptive spam that wastes the community's time. This IP in particular has posted at least 8 other similar threads since August 2023. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, go forth and remove unsourced content regardless of who put it there, but as usual, even if someone inserts unsourced material back, we have to obey 3RR and wait for others to intervene, which they will in all likelihood do if the material is unsourced and not encyclopedic. There's no freeze on editing while an ANI is going on, just a caution to maybe be extra careful, but if you're editing within the Five Pillars anyways, there shouldn't be a problem! You don't need anyone's permission to undo the damage caused by someone else's disruptive editing so long as your mitigations are not themselves disruptive. lizthegrey (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I got it, imdb is a unreliable source. I won’t start a edit war over this. Nice and simple.😊 Iamamodforjellymario (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello Harryhenry1, you recent reversion of my reversion to restore an edit was based on summary "..keep the word count down to a certain length." I would like to point out that per WP:NOTPAPER, there is not a necessity to keep the word count low. Although Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, the plot section did not boast a very significant part of article, given that other comparable sections are included too. But guidelines may have exemptions if proper reasoning is provided which the IP didn't, however if you have one, it would be great to discuss. Regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There are guidelines for summaries to keep the word count on the lower end for readability, such as WP:VG/PLOT for games, or MOS:FILMPLOT for films. I also had a concern that the article was more focused on describing certain cutscenes beat for beat, which are unnecessary in a summary and seemed to just be catering to, for lack of a better word, the "meme culture" surrounding the game. That specific article was also discussed at User talk:Cogsan#Zelda CD-i Plot Summaries. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification, but do you know what is 400-700 rule? Is it even a formal/ informal title of any guideline? Also if you know more about the game, you may help by ensuring that the removal of sources in that edit does not affect the overall quality. Best regards, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the rule means. The Manual of Style entries I brought up show what I mean. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess you misunderstood me. I know you know what that MOS means, but the IP who made that 'reasonable' edit wrote in their edit summary Trimmed the plot to obey the 400-700 Wikipedia rule. But it seems that no such rule called "400-700" exists, so IP is making their own rules, although their edit here was okay. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I accidentally reverted your edit adding back "anti war activist" to the lead of Donald Sutherland. It was something I added once upon a time and I didn't even know it had been disruptively removed back in November. I reverted my own accidental edit of your material. I also added a level 2 disruptive editing warning to that IP editor's page. Finally, I would like to thank you for a good catch. Cheers. Kire1975 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You might well be right about the antinatalism revert, but I'd still like to hereby definitively warn you not to engage in any more obvious "stalking". There is good reasons for this rule being in place. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it still fine to make edits like this? Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess so. I think I fixed the problem. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You are, again, engaged in behaviour that is clearly some version of Wikihounding by proxy.. I would like to hereby ask you to disengage. If not, it's blatant canvassing; and a ~12 yo user acc. also knows that much. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You should not really spell check other users posts. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I wouldn't normally do that but I just noticed a formatting error in that user's post that was essentially a broken link, it was so small I thought it'd be okay to fix. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Dude, he’s actually vandalizing the Hotel Transylvania article by ripping chunks out of it. I assume me bringing it up in his T&J argument freaked him out a little because otherwise he wouldn’t be doing this. Can we join heads and file some sort of report? I’m deadly serious about this. Ciscocat (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't really filed a report like this before, so I'm not sure how to join in there. But I'm all for reporting on his bizarre behaviour, so go right ahead. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We’ll figure it out soon. I’ve already filed one so maybe you can take this one (I’ll show you where to find instructions for that).

Also, this is gold. Ciscocat (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a reply from a previous report, where I mentioned your username:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-InedibleDevon-20240819163800-Ciscocat-20240808220000

There are other users who we might be able to ask to voice their opinion. InedibleDevon (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As you might have noticed before, I am a true believer in a strict enforcement of WP:HOUNDING. If you look into our overlapping interactions (cf. the "Editor Interaction Analyser"), a clear pattern emerges. This warning subsumes further WP:CANVASSING of matters regarding my person on others' talk pages and the like. I have done you the courtesy of warning you one additional time; please take this opportunity seriously. No hard feelings. Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Crash 'N Score arcade flyer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You posted a warning on the talk page of IP address "user" 69.161.113.27 for plagiarism in Extinction risk from climate change. I also posted a message there for a much less serious (apparently good-faith) error in which s/he persisted in spite of repeated call-outs. Now I find that in your case, right after your warning, s/he continued with some classic vandalism.

I don't know much about reporting users (the one time I did I was told off because the IP address was likely a shared one, even though all the edits over the years were problematic), but you seem to have more experience. Would it be time for that, or not? Rontombontom (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring on the diary of a wimpy kid rodrick rules article. We are all users on this platform and we should be able to write stuff without always getting it cancelled. What I said was barely even any extra words. Nothing much different. I feel I was doing right by being precise on what certain things were being phrased and there is nothing wrong with it. If you want to ask me questions or give me any observation you can just chat with me on my talk page rather than edit war and erase other people's stuff for no reason. I am willing to talk to you and work with you if you cooperate not just erase stuff because you dislike it and or add stuff of your own when other people besides you are here on this platform. Gymrat16 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Summaries are supposed to be certain length, (between 400 and 700 words) not spell out everything you seen in a movie, and in my view your additions were unnecessary. Do you understand? I am also not "cancelling" you over the additions, that's a silly comparison. On a wiki you have to understand not everything you add has to, or needs to be, kept around if it's not a good change. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

but also you have to understand that not everything will be perfect nor should it be. It isn't spelling out everything I see. And there are more people editing in this site besides you. Maybe take it to someone that can settle it if you can rather than blindly erase it. Take it to a mediator if you have to. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I know that not everything can be perfect, but the purpose of being an editor on a wiki is to edit articles if I think it could be improved, and shortening a plot summary is something many other editors besides me also do. I am not a lone weirdo deleting stuff just for the sake of it. In this case it also doesn't matter how small the addition seems to you, if it's seen as an unnecessary clarification it can be deleted. You can't expect every one of your edits to be just kept as-is. Here is another edit on the same page by a different user of them also shortening the plot summary - are they going too far in your view? It seems like a reasonable edit to me, and they didn't need to "take to someone else that can settle it" or "a mediator". Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

well clearly you and i aren't seeing eye to eye so lets take it to someone higher up and they can settle it! Also, I never said I expect everything I do to stay and neither should you I just think it is dumb to be that overworked about barely any extra words and the fact that you're refusing to simply take my advice and get some more views by other people and just go by your own selfish beliefs shows that you can't do things in good faith or cooperate with those that confront you. I am a pretty nice and easy guy although we all can have mishaps but the fact you're only going with by what you think rather than get more input sounds pretty selfish to me. And who is "they" too? Did you already seek more input or are you only referring to yourself? Gymrat16 (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Please don't take any of my actions in bad faith, these are some huge assumptions about me as a person. I'm not being selfish here, I'm just doing what many others before me have done in shortening plot summaries and reverting unnecessary additions, and frankly I don't see why you're making such a fuss about this. Have you discussed any of your own additions with anyone else? By your own logic you're being selfish and not acting in good faith. Also, by "they" I am referring to the editor who made that edit shortening the plot summary that I'm citing as precedent here. If you want more advice in this area, please read WP:PLOTSUM and WP:STREAMLINE. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

How am I being selfish when I am the one who is trying to cooperate with you and try and come to a settlement? Erasing one's sentences but not giving out any valid reason for it in the description nor reaching out to them asking what their intent is that's pretty selfish to me. If that was your goal then you could've either said that either to me in my talk page or been more specific on your description in why it was done on that article alone after doing so rather than doing so in the most vague way possible. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, but I must say you just calling me selfish and entitled isn't really helping these discussions - are you aware of the rule to take other editors in good faith first and foremost? I don't want to escalate the situation if you say you're willing to find a settlement, acting in bad faith has never been my intention here - do you understand? For more on this, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL if you haven't already Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

i get it and i just wish you had collaborated a little bit with me prior because as i said i never did either Gymrat16 (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That's good to hear - what do you need now? I've already explained why I removed them, but do you need further explanation? Harryhenry1 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

not at this moment just make sure you don't hesitate to go on my talk page and ask questions if you need more reasons behind what i do that may or may sound right in your view and we can work together Gymrat16 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

don't hesitate to ask me questions if something doesn't sit the best with you or give me pointers if you like if you see something i write that may be off Gymrat16 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Stop ruining my edit of Bunnicula and Ducktales was animated by Snipple Animation Studios?! Why you can't see the credits! FDA565 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

We need a source backing up your claims, not just "check the credits!" Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring and removing POV tag until dispute is collectively resolved. If there's still active disagreement, the tag should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.100.210 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand - that said, judging by the ZeroGlyph user's edits I don't feel like the POV tag was made in good faith. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You are more familiar with them than I, is 2A00:23C8:9DB1:1701:ED17:683C:CDA6:CD39 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS) a block evasion of Matthew John Drummond? They've edited on both Peter Sallis and the draft Draft:Jackanory Playhouse, the draft where MJD's the only major contributor, but the geolocation doesn't match 45.178.75.34 the IP they were blocked from, and other than those two pages MJD's been known to frequent, I don't see any edit changes that are conclusive similarities. Knowing that draft exists could be telling, but I wanted some a little more conclusive before pulling the report button. They did have a span of editing on Peter Sallis where 2A00 edited July 28th, then the sock Pxhz59 edited July 29th, with a blip of an hour between edits where 2A00 made an edit at roughly halfway between, but not sure what to make of that. Zinnober9 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It does sound likely to me, especially with the Jackanory Playhouse page. You can submit it as part of a sockpuppet investigation. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I've submitted a report. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:1977 Baseball Video Game Cover Art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

we are not sockpuppets. We are helping the Page of this list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unproduced_Disney_animated_project 93.34.91.7 (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This address was, in fact, blocked for sockpuppetry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.44.156.128/25 Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

hi there, why did you revert my change on the gender-equality paradox? No reason was given so I don't know how to correct it. Aninx (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, the revert was a mistake on my part, you revert is fine. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m sorry if this is stupid, I’m still fairly new. This is just a genuine question. Cooldood5555 (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, here's my reason: You can't just link to an unofficial upload of a movie in a Wikipedia article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

And why, exactly, is that? Cooldood5555 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Copyright issues, that's the long and short of it. It's why the rules for posting copyrighted images on this site is so strict. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, okay Cooldood5555 (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Just curious why you reverted it. I am a noob, so sorry if this is silly. I know that the category is not approved yet, but thought that any registered user that is older could make one without going thought approval process. Cthulhu does fall under the Tentacles/tentacle monsters in fiction tag. ConanHighwoods (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a silly question to ask: It still needs to go through that approval process, especially if you have so few edits. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Explain why you continue reverting the addition of one word to The Rising Tide of Color's article. It is relevant ethnic/cultural information that better prepares the reader. Saying disruptive without further explanation is not sufficient. JarmoTheKing (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But why is it important to "highlight ethnic cultural information to better prepare the reader"? Why are we highlighting him as Jewish and not anyone else's ethnicity in the same section of the article? Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In response to your undoing of my addition of Jewish to Franz Boas on that article you mentioned my attempt to edit David Irving's Wikipedia entry as the foundation of some moral argument against my edit. That edit was also in good faith:

Did you fully read and appreciate what I was attempting to do there? That author wrote an entire book, yes an entire book, as an acclaimed historian, that was entirely dedicated to derailing the professional career of a colleague. Do you see the financial incentive for that individual to publish such a lengthy hit piece? There isn't one.

I was doing a surface examination of David Irving, who I am impartial to and still know little of, and found that, objectively, many of the claims in that book were not based in fact. Many were utterly false and I assume simply supposed the reader would not care to check the citations. The claim that I addressed there was that the author of that diatribe (that clearly had external funding), said that Irving denied Hitler's cognizance of the Holocaust.

That claim could not be further from the truth (indeed what a ridiculous claim it would be to argue that the leader of a country did not know about its most obvious, most taxing, and most atrocious campaign). If you read the work he was referencing, David Irving includes the memoir of one of Hitler's lieutenants, who is infatuated with Hitler, in which said lieutenant logs in his journal that he cannot believe that Hitler could have ever been the originator of the idea of the execution of the Jewish people, insisting that Hitler would have been more partial to expulsion rather than extermination.

So, not only did Irving not deny Hitler's cognizance of the holocaust, but the person who wrote the included words didn't either: only that Hitler couldn't have possibly been the impetus for the decision, even if he obviously ultimately agreed.

That edit was barred from entry without addressing my argument. You using my interaction with such material as some allegiance to any party is irrelevant. I am in pursuit of the truth at the expense of any and all ideologies and peoples. It seems that Wikipedia as an organization is not in pursuit of truth for the sake of truth.

The acknowledgment of Franz Boas as someone aligned with Jewish values is relevant.

Especially so when the critic of an ethnically motivated nationalist writing is himself an ethnically motivated nationalist of a separate country: Israel's ethnically nationalist policy of right to return allows individuals meeting a certain threshold of Jewish DNA to attain citizenship at any time. Imagine a world where you could achieve U.S. citizenship if you had a sufficient percentage of Anglo-Saxon or Celtic Britonic DNA? There would be outrage.

Naturally, if one ethnically nationalist movement should be harangued by an individual, it would be most pertinent to acknowledge that said individual is from a different ethnically nationalist movement, rather than being a neutral party/arbiter. JarmoTheKing (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

the critic of an ethnically motivated nationalist writing is himself an ethnically motivated nationalist of a separate country: Israel's ethnically nationalist policy of right to return allows individuals meeting a certain threshold of Jewish DNA to attain citizenship at any time. What does Franz Boas have to do with Israel or its DNA citizenship policies? Just because he's Jewish? The modern state known as Israel wouldn't be formed until a few years after he died. I could maybe see an argument if he was a zionist who wanted a Jewish state, but is there anything to back up that claim? Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Because being a Jewish individual is being a diaspora'd people; someone with no true home, someone facing persecution no matter where they go. This naturally leads to a fierce, retaliatory ethnic identity (especially a hundred years ago), not to mention that being reinforced heavily by the cultural themes and practices inherent in Judaism.

This ethnic identity is dangerous: if you read the Talmud, you will find that goyim (potentially both you and I), are classified as fundamentally inferior to any Jew. Even a goyim who spends his entire life studying the Torah and the Talmud will have a soul that only comes close, yet is still fundamentally less than, a Jewish soul.

You have an individual like Franz Boas, who, though originally (as many people do in their youth, as we are all innocent as children) conceived of himself strongly as German, faced discrimination as a result of his name/heritage. After graduating university he went to study abroad, and came to the laughable (yet surprisingly academically seminal) idea that because the education and skills received from his time in university did nothing to prepare him in ice fishing or surviving the arctic tundra, that there is no definitively such thing as a 'proper' or an inherently virtuous culture, and derivatively, that there is no reason to love or defend your own culture as there is no culture fundamentally: we are all just humans.

Strikingly, all of Judaism is fervently opposed to such. They follow matrilineal descent and put a heavy emphasis on genetic lineage. To be of a chosen people requires a genetic foundation, something that the west would decry as vile: something inherently racist and dangerous. To quote a prominent rabbi of our time, Yosef Mizrachi:

"Thank you God, for making me a Jew. [...] Thank you for not making me a goy. Thank you for not making me a slave. Thank you for not making me a woman."

The ideas of Israel, their policies, are fundamentally theocratic policies. They are a nation that operates within the pretext of Judaism, and thus Jewish supremacy. This is reflected in their genocide of the women and children in Gaza, as well as their justification for those murders:

"They will become terrorists one way or the other. So that's what the Torah say, someone is on their way to kill you now or in a year from now, you can kill him even now a year before. You don't have to wait a minute before. But the point is right here that Hashem say [sic], 'Do not have mercy on the children. Kill all their children also.' Why? There's no difference between them and their children."

Naturally, Franz Boas, despite his academic persona of someone chasing absolute equality among humans, despite his lofty ideals of absolute equity and equality, married an Austrian Jew of the same exact ethnicity. This alone is borderline evidence for my claim. The idea that such an ostensibly liberal-minded, progressive thinker would just happen to spend the rest of his life with a member from not just his own race, but a very similar tribe? Improbable, especially when considering the context of his founding of such ideas that are deleterious to the social fabric of any nation pursuing solidarity and national integrity.

Ultimately, ideas such as the cultural relativism of Franz Boas, or the Betty Friedan (nee Goldstein) feminist ideas of motherhood being oppressive and patriarchal (rather than a collective onus of humanity to foster the next generation that falls on both mother and father), are ideas that are dismantling to the cultural and social fabric of any society.

This is interestingly foiled by Israel's direct opposition to them: holding strong to massive sentiment of cultural supremacy and genetic supremacy, as well as disavowing feminist ideas that denigrate marriage, and the near total ban on abortion practiced in Israel.

The very Jewish-origin ideas that are popular and widespread in the west, are banned in the very country they are a product of (even if not willingly cf. right to return). Naturally, one must draw the conclusion that despite the absence or presence of the author's support of a Jewish state, the origin of these ideas are often from ethnic Jews; one cannot help but notice the pattern.

Both Friedan and Boas married Jews, despite preaching ideals that disavowed religon, culture, and the nuclear family: the building block of any nation and the foundation for the perpetuity of any people (U.S. birth rate 1.52 vs Israel birth rate of 3.06). The duplicitous nature of these individuals in their personal lives should give pause, especially considering the movements each worked actively to disavow: whether it was any and all ethnic nationalist movements in the case of Franz Boas, or abortion laws despite having many children in the case of Betty Friedan. The repetition of such patterns becomes evidence at some point (cf. Bayesian inference), more so when you consider that both were heavily involved in Jewish groups.

So, finally, denoting Franz Boas as a Jew is relevant, given his generation of ideas damaging to ethnic cultural movements, ideas that he did not adhere to in his personal life. JarmoTheKing (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If nothing else, this rant (made largely of your original research and assumptions based on broad generalizations about Jewish people) shows that I can't take your addition of "Jewish" to the description of Franz Boas to that article in good faith. Having children and being pro-abortion are not mutually exclusive. Whoever they chose to marry was their own business, and doesn't indicate any kind of hypocrisy that you're claiming here. And again, the connection between Israel, its (to be clear, very real) crimes, and Franz Boas is incredibly tenuous. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Admittedly including my own research wasn't really pertinent to my point.

However, the fact that Franz Boas is Jewish and married an Austrian Jew, despite his public preaching to the contrary, should indicate inclusion of the modifier.

Being tribally Jewish, if we may denote it so, should be substantial when any tribal Jew decries any ethnically nationalist movement. JarmoTheKing (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Being tribally Jewish, if we may denote it so, should be substantial when any tribal Jew decries any ethnically nationalist movement. It doesn't. Who he chose to marry was his own choice, (nor does it make him a "tribal Jew"), and does not merit the inclusion of the modifier. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand. However, the idea that out of all the races, and against the virtues of his own teachings, the odds that he chose one of his own culture and his own tribe is close to definitive evidence.

I will try to find more definitive evidence on the matter. JarmoTheKing (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not "definitive evidence" at all. Should Martin Luther King Jr. have had to marry a white woman because marrying Coretta Scott King, a black woman, would somehow harm his message of equality and civil rights? Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It is close to definitive evidence, as I said. If Martin Luther King Jr. promoted interracial marriage as a virtue, yet married a black woman after the fact, there would be a weakening of outside confidence in his politics and evidence for duplicity.

You need to consider the context. American black culture is a nascent entity. Their culture does not emphasize the nuclear family, nor their own people, nor strong community ties. They disproportionately attack their own people and are more likely to default on alimony, despite also being more likely to have children out of wedlock. They value material expressions of wealth, disregarding inheritance and political power. They do not help their own people. American black culture is in no way comparable to the massive, nepotic, monolithic entity that is Jewish culture. It does not practice supremacy at its core. American black culture largely only practices Christianity, a religion of equality.

Martin Luther King Jr. preaching equality but marrying one of his own would not contradict his teachings as the two are not related. Franz Boas pushing the narrative of the absence of inherent worth of any culture commits borderline blasphemy, inre to his own teachings, when emphasizing the importance of culture in the choice of his wife if her being Jewish was a factor. As we cannot conclusively say it was a factor in his choice, it is only close to definitive evidence. Were we to know that her being Jewish was a major factor, it would be definitive evidence.

Regardless, if this he truly is to be a tribal Jew, it should be possible to find other information that does not require this amount of context. JarmoTheKing (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Definitive evidence of WHAT?

>You need to consider the context. American black culture is a nascent entity. Their culture does not emphasize the nuclear family, nor their own people, nor strong community ties.

Spoken like someone who has never met an actual black person and whose only experience with them is one of them calling you names in middle school.

>They value material expressions of wealth, disregarding inheritance and political power. They do not help their own people. American black culture is in no way comparable to the massive, nepotic, monolithic entity that is Jewish culture. It does not practice supremacy at its core. American black culture largely only practices Christianity, a religion of equality.

Ignoring the rent parties, the NAACP, the entire Civil Rights Movement, the Nation of Islam and the Five Percenters and the Black Muslims...

Also, like, Jewish culture isn't a monolith. (Despite the efforts of the Israeli government...) There's like all these different languages, cultures...you make the classic mistake of assuming all Jewish people are rich German or Polish Ashkenazim SpaceboundRocket (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting use of the Hebrew masculine plural.

I am not looking to argue with you personally, nor to contend with your cultural bias given your affiliation with the Jewish faith, especially when attended by your vile, despicable attempt to become a woman and to defile the sanctity of both womanhood and motherhood (and by extension your participation in the unraveling of the social fabric, whether intentional or by virtue of your susceptibility to these movements as an autistic man).

I am attempting to validate my desire to simply append the modifier 'Jewish' to Franz Boas' name in a Wikipedia article. This is done in an attempt to underscore (and fight against a wealth of renaming and refusal of many Jews to denote their participation in the faith) the disproportionate impact practitioners of the Jewish faith have had on the unraveling of the social and cultural fabric of the American Empire. This is to combat Jewish supremacy and highlight their true allegiance when appropriate, such as in the case of deriding an ethnic nationalist movement of a separate tribe (again, especially in the context of Judaism forming the fundamental aspect of the Jewish nationalist movement).

If you were to disavow multiple ethnic nationalist movements in China, despite being a member of a nation/tribe/movement that is directly opposed to those tribes, that is relevant information. If perhaps, a Vietnamese nationalist that was pretending to be, fundamentally, a Chinese national when attacking certain political movements, naturally, that information would be critical.

In the same way, consummate practitioners of the Jewish faith are members of a supremacist, hostile, entity. In this religion, as you well know, there are the real humans, the 'chosen' people, and then there are the cattle: the goyim.

Laws that concern goyim are applied differently. Here are a few from the Halakhah and the Babylonian Talmud:

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 348.2 "Deceiving an Akum [goy], such as deceiving him in a calculation or defrauding him of his loan, is permitted, provided it is not publicized, so that there is no chilul Hashem [desecration of God's Name]"

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 156.5 "Jews are permitted to lend to a goy, deal with and persuade the goy in order to take from him, for the property of goyim is like ownerless property, and the first jew that passes has full right to seize it."

Talmud Bavli, Bava Metzia 24a "The lost object of a goy is permitted to keep."

Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 59a - "a goy who engages in Torah is liable for death."

This slur is widely used within the Jewish faith.

Naturally, anyone with a profound allegiance to the Jewish people ought to be noted as such when it is relevant, such as in the The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy article. This is decidedly important if Franz Boas indeed formed a retaliatory ethnic identity given his persecution and his having been denied a German identity, which is likely given his parents being observant Jews, and his decision to marry an Austrian Jew in spite of his academic works.

I will find more definitive evidence on the matter, or otherwise drop my case entirely. If you would like to continue responding emotionally, rather than in defense of Franz Boas' allegiance, I will ignore and estimate that your irrelevant instances of derision be removed at some point. JarmoTheKing (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Dude I ain't even Jewish. I'm just some guy who's tired of people of like you thinking that the Internet belongs to them and that anyone who says otherwise is one of (((them))).

You are responding emotionally to out of context statements made by rabbis from thousands of years before either of us were born. Statements made in the context of the Jewish people's own persecution by the Romans.

And if we have to mention that Franz Boas was against racism because he was Jewish...you should also say that Hitler did all his crimes because he was raised Catholic. Or that the Rwandan Genocidaires were all Catholic.

You are poisoning the well and arguing in bad faith. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Saying "someone preaching against racism shouldn't marry someone of their own race" is a bit like saying "someone who is opposed to immigration should never leave their home country". SpaceboundRocket (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You seem to think that randomly bolding phrases means that you're objectively correct.

This is false.

And you're the only one bringing up the Talmud and Betty Friedan and the secret conspiracy of Albanian Mormons feminists or w/e SpaceboundRocket (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Was trying to make a massive block of text easier to read. No idea why you're here. JarmoTheKing (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I came here to laugh at you SpaceboundRocket (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

"transgender and autistic and a communist."

You stumbled upon this page and felt the need to comment after being harassed yet again, as you will continue to be for your existence, by reality.

The combination of the terms transgender and autistic make you uniquely vulnerable to propaganda. I would be more concerned if some lamentable individual in your position were not to laugh at my arguments.

As far as I know, Talk pages are for discussing articles, not proffering your pathetic derision. JarmoTheKing (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You talk about propaganda but you're the only person talking about the Jewish conspiracy here. The right-wing are all projection. SpaceboundRocket (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

And as for the David Irving edits, If you feel your arguments weren't addressed, you can continue on the talk page over there, nothing's stopping you. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting rapid undo edits by 2025-36748-33 who seems to be aggressively targeting my edits, misusing a vandalism tool and reverting them without logical explanation and often worsening article quality. If this person continues, what should I do? I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia. I have left a talk page note for them to please desist. Wonder29 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@Harryhenry1 Hello, I’d like to raise a sourcing concern here to ensure the article follows Wikipedia policy. If there is an existing Talk-page consensus or a relevant WikiProject guideline requiring book-only sourcing for this article, please point it out here. Otherwise, concerns should focus on the reliability of individual sources so the matter can be discussed and resolved in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS and the WP:BRD cycle.

To avoid unnecessary edit-warring, it would be best to pause further reverts and discuss the issue here per WP:EDITWAR. If needed, outside input can be sought through appropriate dispute-resolution processes (WP:DR). Star Rider X (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is the relevant page discussion: Talk:List of cult films#List criteria Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Josephite 25 have you seen the discussion I linked to? Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

My objective is not to censor Wikipedia to my standards or play word police games; it is a known fact that "mental retardation" or "mentally retarded" have become dated and derogatory terms due to the pejorative nature "retard" took on in the 1990s. This is supported by the intellectual disability article, which acknowledges "mental retardation" as a dated term. However I am handling the articles on a case-by-case basis; if the words "retard" or "retardation" are in quotes, the mere topic of the page, or otherwise used in a neutral POV, then I leave them be. However this is a double-edged sword for pages that don't put the words in any quotations but the page's subject explicitly uses the words. Take for example the Family Guy episode "Petarded". A few sentences say "intellectually disabled" to describe the plot of Peter coming to terms with being declared "mentally retarded". Same goes for any law-related pages regarding the execution of the disabled who were referred to as "mentally retarded" in legal contexts before Rosa's Law (2010) was enacted.

I do at least make sure to pipe instances of "retarded" or "retardation" to the intellectual or developmental disability pages (depending on which fits more in the given context), and link Retard (pejorative) for quoted instances that use the word in a hateful and ignorant way. You are free to go through my contributions and mass-revert the ones that go against the censorship policy; but I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. All I'm trying to do is fight ableism by using the up-to-date, considerate medical terminologies in neutral contexts.

P.S. I knew the South Park example was quoting the show's specified episode, but it just confused me to see the word there without being put in quotation marks; the lack of emphasis placed around the word made it seem like it wasn't written from a neutral POV. MezmerizingWiseguy (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for information, not to fight righteous political battles or righting great wrongs. Just removing the word from any context, and misrepresenting it in quotes, seems like overkill to me. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

All right, it's been finalized that I won't be actively trying to remove or replace the words in any context with the exception of blatant vandalism. Still I do think that pages on modern works should use the up-to-date disability-related terms if the work itself does; I'll leave older disability-related works in the past where they belong. You are free to mass-revert the remaining revisions I've made to the terms where the rephrasing or removal seems unreasonable. MezmerizingWiseguy (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@MezmerizingWiseguy: please be careful replacing retarded with delayed in cases like Special:Diff/1330897097. The idea here, in physics, is to slow down the particles, not to delay them. It's because we need them slower, while we don't really care if they appear sooner or later. Try to remember if there were any other examples in physics or biology. There's no need to purge the word from every article: I wonder if Special:Diff/1330576114 and Special:Diff/1330004504 were necessary. Ponor (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on talk:List of best-selling books under the heading "Blanket ban on "books of a religious, ideological, philosophical or political nature"" that you may be interested in. DervotNum4 (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Can I ask why have you undid my edit I did for Ocean sunfish. ~2026-38656-1 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, un-encyclopedic language. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

What about my edit for Cross-platform software. ~2026-38656-1 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

And my first edit. ~2026-38656-1 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Because it was adding material previously added by several sockpuppet accounts. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Unnecessary addition. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

So am I not allowed to ever add back something that was from someone who abused an account. Even if I'm just trying to help. ~2026-38656-1 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

How can I be sure you're not the same editor adding it back anonymously? Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but I appreciate your continued and acceptable points or concerns that you raised with me on this, especially on anything regarding the strict observance to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and original research. I also understand that the Fandom wikis, Substack blogs, and reposted Wikipedia advice articles that I cited before did not meet any of these standards, and I acknowledge that my previous attempts to express my position here may have, even without any intention, led to your perceptions of me explaining myself or reasoning out using sources based on "original research" or "arbitrary rulemaking." And I give my most sincere apologies if my explanations were not clear enough in demonstrating the important basis of my arguments here. But now, I'd like to re-state or re-explain myself behind my actions again.

My intentions behind this here are not to introduce any personal assumptions or subjective opinions of mine about artistic merit maintained within the 64 animated feature films of Walt Disney Animation Studios (or the "Disney Animated Canon"), but rather to reflect on the established and actual distinctions stated by film historians and scholars regarding the production context and structural differences of the six (6) 1940s anthology or package films. The distinctions I seek to emphasize on are not my own inventive statements but are drawn from critical analyses that evaluated the unique circumstances of the anthology or package films produced within that decade. ​And the sources that they come from mostly discuss how these films, such as "Saludos Amigos" (1943) and "The Three Caballeros" (1945), were a direct response to the financial pressures and personnel shortages faced by the feature film division during World War II and that these six films were explicitly created as compilations of shorts to sustain the studio during a very challenging period. And these anthology films differed significantly from other anthology films produced by the animation studio, like "Fantasia" (1940) (which was created as an artistic experiment of blending between classical music and animation) or "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" (1977) (which was a later (although cheaply-made) compilation film of already successful "Winnie-the-Pooh" shorts under different animation studio conditions at the time).

While Disney's marketing has, within its history, used numbering systems for its "Animated Canon" or "Classics" lists, there are scholarly works that give a deeper understanding of the distinct historical and production reasons and/or explanations behind each film, which is what I plan to integrate. I also recognize that Disney defines its official canon for its own purposes, and my goals here are not to challenge Disney's list directly, but to improve on the full and comprehensive understanding of the films within it by providing essential and contextual information supported by academic research. ​Not only that, there are still ongoing discussions among fans and/or enthusiasts of Disney Animation who, much like the scholars, recognize and explore these distinctions and create their own categorizations and timelines that reflect a refined understanding of these films, which is I want to use to demonstrate an extensive interest in categorizing these animated films beyond simple inclusion.

Moreover, I understand that my plan is to provide actual evidence, not just declare any perspectives of mine. And 5herefore, I pledge to continuing to research and present further academic and scholarly sources (books by reputable film historians and peer-reviewed journal articles) that explicitly break down the production necessities, thematic structures, and critical and audience receptions that differentiate the six 1940s package films within the larger body of Disney's animated features.

No matter how many times you may resist me and/or my reasons and explanations behind my intentions and actions, I have no intentions on giving up, especially in attempting on the highest standard of accuracy and contextual completeness for this, Harryhenry1. This is not about me winning a personal argument against you or anyone else at Disney (or even the Disney Animation fans and/or enthusiasts that may end up with confusion or frustration fro, what I'm doing), nor is it about setting a new "canon" on Disney Animation. It is about ensuring that here on Wikipedia, as a comprehensive and authoritative encyclopedia, provides any readers (including Disney Animation fans themselves on official Walt Disney Animation Studios pages) with the most strong, improved, and historically informed understanding of these six significant films. Along with that, my determinations for this are grounded in what I believe that reflecting on this scholarly understanding can enhance the article and serve the public good by bringing greater clearness to Walt Disney's animation history. And as long as you and the platform can allow for obliged and evidence-based discussion, I will continue to advocate for this more detailed and accurate presentation through my plans for established Wikipedia processes and me aiming to contribute to a comprehensive record that ultimately addresses and settles any long-standing questions for both scholars and fans of Disney Animation. Inanimanitatist (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

So here's my next question: What specific articles changes are you actually trying to make here on Wikipedia, the ones that you I have no intentions on giving up on? Are you still gonna try and demote the package films from the Disney animated canon list? And do you have any specific reliable sources you can cite here for this perspective on these films? If you've drawn from critical analyses, what are they? Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

1. https://collider.com/disney-animation-package-films-explained/

2. https://www.polygon.com/century-of-disney/23622082/disney-package-films-wartime-shorts-ranked-make-mine-music/

3. https://www.bfi.org.uk/features/many-merry-eras-disney

4. https://www.laughingplace.com/w/disney-entertainment/a-case-for-package-films/

5. https://plotandtheme.com/2015/08/07/the-seven-ages-of-disney-animation-part-ii-the-age-of-package-films/

6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1746847707083419

7. https://www.proquest.com/openview/99fa78c5003a7d50d75cff824b38d99b/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

8. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2025/04/how-walt-disney-used-cartoons-to-support-the-war-effort/

9. https://kylelovesanimationnmore.wordpress.com/2021/05/25/disney-and-the-animated-anthology/

10. https://cartoonresearch.com/index.php/the-disney-package-features/

11. https://www.sttammanylibrary.org/blogs/post/disney-movie-eras-wartime/

12. https://www.disneyavenue.com/2015/08/the-7-eras-of-disney-filmmaking.html

Excuse me (again), Harryhenry1, and I thank you for reaching out to me and appreciate your concern and the opportunity to learn about my intentions regarding any Wikipedia articles about Disney animation, particularly on if you're thinking I'm "trying to demote the 1940s package/anthology films from the Disney animated canon list". ​But I want to strongly assure you that "no." And (a firm) "no" as in I am not trying to remove or demote the six 1940s Disney anthology/package films from the official Disney animated canon list (or official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios).​ And I'd like to restate myself from before that my actual and entire goal here is to refine/improvr the accuracy and depth of this information on the Wikipedia pages and give a more comprehensive and historically-informed understanding of these six (6) very unique and distinctive films.

I'd like to also restate myself that the edits I propose in making to those Wikipedia pages are intended to introduce rich and contextual information that explains the very unique nature and production history of these six films. Specifically, I intend to integrate any (if potential or not) sections that strongly detail how these films (Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros, Make Mine Music, Fun and Fancy Free, Melody Time, and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad) were produced under the exceptional circumstances of World War II and the financial pressures faced by the animation studio/feature film division at the time. But this also means making an emphasis on their anthology format, their role as an absolutely practical solution to keep the studio operational, and their very distinct differences from the other 50+ Disney's traditional and single-narrative animated features, as well as be clear that while the other three (3) anthology films (Fantasia, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, and Fantasia 2000) all have very unique production aspects that are in the same format but made uniquely and distinctively, the other six 1940s package films have represented (for more than 80 years or so) a very particular and different era of creative and economic constraint for the studio. On an additional note, my primary objective for this here is to to reclassify and re-evaluate them (highly) as 'Associated productions' to better reflect their original formats and purposes, not to remove them from the total count of the "Disney Animated Canon" nor the canon itself.

Furthermore, to support these changes that I intend to make and provide the necessary critical analysis/analyses for this, I will be drawing upon the highly reliable, accurate, and/or relevant sources that I'm using here (but I'm hoping that even if they're not directly available, you don't assume that any of these are arbitrary nor I'm using them for my own personal assumptions). For example, the British Film Institute's online article 'The many merry eras of Disney' explicitly identifies the 1942-1949 period of Walt Disney's animated films as the 'package film era' and details how the war and economic factors led to these shortened projects. Similarly, online articles from Collider.com and PlotandTheme.com, like 'How Disney Animation's Most Forgotten Era Saved the Studio During WWII' and/or 'The Ages of Disney Animation – Part II: The Age of Package Films,' serve as strong highlights on the wartime needs and financial constraints that formed these productions at the time. Additionally, scholarly works, like the online thesis or review paper/essay 'The Changing Space of Animation: Disney's Hybrid Films of the 1940s' from ProQuest, further supports the unique, although often 'hybrid,' nature of these films and distinguishes them structurally from the other traditional "features" of the animation studio (including the other three (3) similarly-formatted but highly unique and distinctive anthology films).

Overall, Harryhenry1, I plan to make these edits as they are about improving the narrative on Wikipedia pages related to this with accurate, well-sourced historical and critical context and making sure that these six 1940s anthology/package films are understood for what they truly were within Disney's evolving history, not about completely erasing their presence from the Disney Animated Canon list or any official list.

And even if you think that my reasonings and explanations still may be "convoluted" or "confusing" and you still reject me from what I plan to do for the official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (for "removing the six (6) 1940s package films" from it), I kindly ask of you to not do that or think of me and what I'm doing that way. But I will kindly, even if it takes months or years until I'm allowed (whether under any supervision or not), keep on re-stating and adding more reliable information that I find online to my explanations and statements until you may clearly understand what I'm trying to do here (and not commit ay editing crimes or repeat the same mistake again). And I do know that Walt Disney Animation Studios' film for 2026 (called "Hexed") is coming up or the Disney Animated Canon is about "historical context" and not "popularity," all I want to say (and for now) is that even if this is unofficial, I don't mean to cause chaos, upsetting, and/or confusion for Disney nor the animation studio nor any Disney Animation fan and/or enthusiast regarding this. All I want is to let you and them know that no matter what (especially when things have changed for Disney), I'm not trying to "remove the six 1940s Disney anthology/package films from the Disney Animated Canon" but to "re-classify and re-evaluate them into (highly) associated productions" (based on, even if in-house, their original production purposes and formats that differed very uniquely and significantly from the other three (3) anthology films and the 50+ traditional-narrative "features").

(P.S. I plan to do the same for "Dinosaur" in 2000, since there is still an implicit but ongoing debate within Disney Animation fans and/or enthusiasts as to whether the live-action/animated film (produced in-house by The Secret Lab and not by the animation studio itself) is actually an official part of the "Disney Animated Canon" list or not, but I'll do that for another time. I'll let you know about that.) Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

How can you claim that you're not trying to remove the films from the canon list:

But I want to strongly assure you that "no." And (a firm) "no" as in I am not trying to remove or demote the six 1940s Disney anthology/package films from the official Disney animated canon list (or official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios).

But then later on you say this:

and you still reject me from what I plan to do for the official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (for "removing the six (6) 1940s package films" from it)

So are you still planning to remove them from the list anyway? Or have I misunderstood something here? Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but I'd like to thank you for pointing out the evident contradiction in this and, once again, deeply apologize for the confusing phrasings or word structures in my previous message I'd also like to let you know that it's critical for me to clear off any misunderstanding that you have towards my explanations and make sure that my intentions are clear, too.

When I stated in my last message "and you still reject me from what I plan to do for the official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (for "removing the six (6) 1940s package films" from it)," I was actually attempting to anticipate your possible interpretation or objection to my reclassification intentions and efforts, not to declare to you that I am actually removing them. My use of 'removing' in that particular context was actually meant to reiterate your initial concern and acknowledge how reclassifying them might feel like any form of removal from a traditional 'canon list' perspective, even though my true intentions are different here. I understand that it was a poorly worded attempt to address a hypothetical rejection, not an assertion of intent, and I still acknowledge my faults behind this and apologize for this.

​Furthermore, and to be absolutely clear, I am still not planning to remove the six 1940s anthology/package films from the overall count or presence within the Disney animated canon list."​ My main proposal here is to reclassify them as 'Associated productions' within the Wikipedia entries of any pages related to the Walt Disney Animation Studios films. And this means they would still be listed and highly acknowledged as part of Walt Disney's animation output during that period, but with improved details that explain their unique production circumstances, formats, and purposes that differentiated them from the traditional single-narrative 'feature' films (including the similarly formatted but highly unique and other three anthology/package films). Through this reclassification, I aim to give a more precise and accurate historical (and harmless) context rather than completely erasing their existence or importance from the studio's filmography. My commitment for this here, Harryhenry1, remains to refine the narrative with accurate and well-sourced historical and critical context, as well as make sure that these six unique anthology/package films in the 1940s are still understood for what they truly were, without completely and harmfully diminishing their place in Disney's history and the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios. Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but I'd like to thank you for pointing out the evident contradiction in this and, once again, deeply apologize for the confusing phrasings or word structures in my previous message I'd also like to let you know that it's critical for me to clear off any misunderstanding that you have towards my explanations and make sure that my intentions are clear, too.

When I stated in my last message "and you still reject me from what I plan to do for the official filmography of Walt Disney Animation Studios (for "removing the six (6) 1940s package films" from it)," I was actually attempting to anticipate your possible interpretation or objection to my reclassification intentions and efforts, not to declare to you that I am actually removing them. My use of 'removing' in that particular context was actually meant to reiterate your initial concern and acknowledge how reclassifying them might feel like any form of removal from a traditional 'canon list' perspective, even though my true intentions are different here. I understand that it was a poorly worded attempt to address a hypothetical rejection, not an assertion of intent, and I still acknowledge my faults behind this and apologize for this. Furthermore, and to be absolutely clear, I am still not planning to remove the six 1940s anthology/package films from the overall count or presence within the Disney animated canon list."​ My main proposal here is to reclassify them as 'Associated productions' within the Wikipedia entries of any pages related to the Walt Disney Animation Studios films. And this means they would still be listed and highly acknowledged as part of Walt Disney's animation output during that period, but with improved details that explain their unique production circumstances, formats, and purposes that differentiated them from the traditional single-narrative 'feature' films (including the similarly formatted but highly unique and other three anthology/package films).

Through this reclassification, I aim to give a more precise and accurate historical (and harmless) context rather than completely erasing their existence or importance from the studio's filmography. My commitment for this here, Harryhenry1, remains to refine the narrative with accurate and well-sourced historical and critical context, as well as make sure that these six unique anthology/package films in the 1940s are still understood for what they truly were, without completely and harmfully diminishing their place in Disney's history and the history of Walt Disney Animation Studios. Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

My main proposal here is to reclassify them as 'Associated productions' within the Wikipedia entries of any pages related to the Walt Disney Animation Studios films Okay, so what would that look like? Would there be little disclaimers or something? I still don't quite follow what edits you're trying to make here. And the sources you're using still don't seem to justify the edits you're trying to make here. You're not giving more context, you're just confusing readers. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1, but before you revert or rechange my edits again, I'm still not attempting to commit "edit warring" nor repeat the same mistakes as I did before but I'm explaining myself in this "Talk page" on why I'm reclassifying the primary genres of the American animated film "Rio" in 2011.

The reason that I'm reclassifying "Rio," while citing the film reviews/articles from the New York Times and Variety.com as evidence to support any personal opinions and/or analysis of mine and to prevent violating the "No original research" and "Verifiability" policies, is that between it and its 2014 sequel, the American animated musical comedy film "Rio 2," "Rio" in 2011 is officially and primarily classified by most third-party reliable sources and film reviews, including the unreliable Fandom wiki sources related to "Rio," as an animated "musical adventure comedy film" because while it features samba-and-contemporary pop-blended music and character humor and slapstick, it also primarily focuses on "adventure" as Blu's "fish-out-of-water" story follows him as a domesticated macaw traveling from Minnesota to Rio de Janeiro and being chained with his female mate, Jewel, while (together) navigating through the world they are in and escaping or trying to survive from bird smugglers and the predatory cockatoo "Nigel," all while featuring a high-stakes characteristic and action present in chase scenes. But at the same time, character development is also present within Blu's emotional journey to overcome his fear of flying.

In contrast to that, "Rio 2" in 2014 is officially and primarily classified by most third-party reliable sources and film reviews, including the unreliable Fandom wiki sources related to "Rio 2," as an animated "musical comedy film" (which I don't want to change or edit on that) because compared to its predecessor film three years ago, the film focuses more on the domesticated and familiar life of Blu's family (set in the Amazon) but with a more leisurely, sitcom-like, and musical feel. Along with that, the plot is driven by relational, situational, and character-driven humor instead of a life-or-death "adventure", the music features more frequent, elaborate, and performance-based songs, and the threats/stakes are reduced and more comedic (particularly, Nigel's comedic revenge plot with his "poison dart frog" lover) rather than the serious and instant danger of smugglers in the first film.

That's all I have to say about that. But still, I'd like to use both the New York Times and Variety.com articles (since they are third-party sources) to prevent myself from violating any policies and committing "edit warring" again as I reclassify "Rio" from an animated "musical comedy film" (which is the primary focus of "Rio 2" in its genres) to, with proper genre reflection (and observation of the "consensus" in genre changes), as an an animated "musical adventure comedy film" (not an "animated musical romantic adventure comedy film" anymore, since the romantic comedy genre is more of a side-genre than a primary genre). And I hope that when I make these edits, we can both agree on good terms (and that you don't revert the edits nor changes I made anymore) that while "Rio" is acknowledgingly classified as a "musical comedy film" in animation, its consensus from plot progression, primary genre focus, and narrative (as well as genre classification consensus from both reliable and unreliable sources) as an animated "adventure film" more than a "comedy film" (which is what its sequel, "Rio 2," focused more on). Inanimanitatist (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

First, please be more succinct in your messages, they do not need to be this long. Second, the connection between the sources and genre classification you're using here, basing them on what the critics say seems incredibly flimsy, at best, and not the way genres are classified on this site. Third, I'm not the only one who's objected to, and reverted, your edits to the genres of certain films. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Harryhenry1,

I am writing this to you regarding my recent edit to the "Rio" (2011) Wikipedia page! particularly on its genre classification. ​I want to assure you that my intentions for this are not to engage in an "edit warring" crime or to break existing and clear consensus, but rather to improve the accuracy and completeness of the animated film's genre description/s.​ I also understand the importance of avoiding original research (and the "No original research" policy, if any third-party, secondary and generally reliable sources I previously cited, both normally and using the Wayback Machine, were "more original research" and violating of the policy) and respecting the community's policies on Wikipedia, including the 'clear consensus against genre changes' towards certain films on Wikipedia.

My edit to include 'adventure' in the genre, which is refining (not re-classifying) "Rio" as an 'animated musical adventure comedy film", comes from my intention of better reflecting the animated film's core narrative. While I do strongly agree and acknowledge that the animated film is undoubtedly an animated "musical comedy film", its plot is also, without a doubt, driven by a significant journey and pursuit and involving the main characters (Blu and Jewel, two blue macaws) overcoming obstacles (bird smugglers and Nigel the cockatoo) in a challenging environment (Rio de Janeiro). And this component, which marks the core "adventure" of the film, is an essential aspect of its structure, much like the distinction often observed between it and its 2014 sequel "Rio 2", where the former is more adventure-centric (focusing on "adventure" more while retaining core musical and comedic elements) and the latter is more comedy-centric (focusing on "comedy" more and leaving "adventure" as a supporting genre, except for "musical"). (I have no absolute, permanent, or definite intentions to change the genre of "Rio 2" on Wikipedia. You're absolutely right on that after I went through research between the core genres of both films.)

I am not attempting to re-classify the film based on my personal opinions or my subjective analysis, but rather to clarify and improve on the existing description to better represent its widely understood elements, other than a "musical" and a "comedy". I am also committed to collaborative editing and am open to discussing this further with you to reach, in collaboration with you, an agreeable resolution that can serve the accuracy and integrity of the article. My aim here is to be a useful contributor, and I hope we can find a way forward that addresses any concerns you still have or previously had with me while also improving the film's article for all readers.

(Also, Harryhenry1, I understand that my edit has been reverted multiple times and I will stop, if you kindly ask me to. And I don’t want to make myself sound threatening to you (nor repeat myself the same mistake and speak to you in the rude attitude I had towards you (for that I greatly apologize for letting my emotions cloud over my actions)), but I hope that we can be able to settle any possible conflict we've entered in and that you understand that I'm trying not to violate any policies anymore and that I'm trying to improve, not re-classify (based on my unsupported or personal analysis), for better clarification and accuracy of the animated primary genres. And in case I'm still violating any policies, if or if not the "No original research" policy, I'm very sorry about that and I will do whatever I can to make sure that I don't do so or don't do it again.) Inanimanitatist (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

The thing is, no matter how good faith your intentions are, an editor told you to stop after multiple reverts, yet you reverted it anyway. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Harryhenry1,

I'd like to ask you for some guidance you regarding editing the primary genre description of "Rio" (2011) in its main article. I'd also like to restate again that my intention is not to reclassify the animated film but to improve and clarify on its genre description from an an animated "musical comedy film" (still highly acknowledging) to "animated musical adventure comedy film," which I believe better reflects the animated film’s narrative and tone (even if I don't use multiple or any reliable sources in order to prevent violating the "No original research" policy and committing "original research," although still supporting). I still understand and respect the importance of clear onsensus and properly observing Wikipedia policies, especially regarding "Verifiability" and avoiding original research.

I still, sincerely and deeply, apologize if any of my earlier edits to the primary genre description of "Rio" (2011) caused any disruption or if my actions seemed hasty or impulsive to you. But moving forward, I will stop (for real this time) and leave it alone. But I would greatly appreciate it if you gave any advice and your permission before I can attempt any further changes (even if it is only one change) to the genre classification. I am also eager to cooperate helpfully and productely on the article, as well as make sure that the article’s accuracy is refined in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia standards and community expectations.

Thank you again for your understanding and support. I look forward to your guidance on how it can be best to proceed. Have a nice day. (I will stop for now until I receive your permission on this.)

(P.S. I intend on doing the same thing for "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 and "Ferdinand" in 2017. I will explain to you on both and on your "Talk page" someday, but for now, it is "Rio.')Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

The genre doesn't need to be "improved", the consensus is clearly against your edits. If you want to discuss it further, take it to the film's talk page. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, Harryhenry1,

I'm sorry for not replying to you, but I wanted to think about this in the last 19 hours (as well as take a break before doing anything) because I still don't want to violate any more of Wikipedia's policies anymore.

I also understand if the clear consensus is clearly against my edits, but I'd still like to discuss it on the animated film's talk page, if that is your suggestion. I still can't help but not leave this alone (or not ignore "Rio" being labeled as an animated "musical comedy film", since I still believe that it is an animated musical adventure comedy film").

But may I ask for your guidance on how I can discuss this further on the film's talk page (and what should I say or what should I do)? I'm also very sorry if I made the same mistake again and again, even though I was trying not to, and if I upsetted you in any way.

Thank you very much and have a good day.

Inanimanitatist (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

You can just bring up what you've mentioned here on its talk page. Also, remember that your edit reasons are cut off if they reach a certain word limit, so we only get half of your explanations each time you make an edit. Please be more susinct in your edit reasons. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2026 (UTC)