User talk:Multiplivision

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Multiplivision! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Rtkat3 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the cookies, Rtkat3!!! :D Multiplivision (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Rtkat3 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Can you please stop disruptive editing in No Time To Spy: A Loud House Movie? It's a Nickelodeon Original Film, not a Nickelodeon Movies film. If you don't stop editing, then I will. Thank you. Akhil K. (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You need to stop. It's shown in the opening AND closing of the film that it is a Nickelodeon Movies production. Multiplivision (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

And I must remind you that what YOU are doing is highly disruptive as you're literally engaging in an edit war. Knock it off. Multiplivision (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

So please, with all due respect, please stop. Multiplivision (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Fine. I will stop. Akhil K. (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Multiplivision. I'm going to remove Nickelodeon Movies in the category and in the infobox in No Time To Spy: A Loud House Movie, and I'm also going to remove No Time To Spy: A Loud House Movie in List of Nickelodeon Movies productions article too if you say yes. The reason why I'm going to remove the film is because the movie confirms that No Time To Spy: A Loud House Movie is only a Nickelodeon Original Film. There's no such credit as Nickelodeon Movies in trailer, and see IMDb for details. Thank you. Akhil K. (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Multiplivision (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Paw Patrol. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hikingboii (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you not know how page formats are supposed to work for internationally co-produced television series? If it's produced between Canada and the United States, it's not supposed to be American-Canadian. That is meant to be absent from the page as per the Manual of Style. Multiplivision (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Get. It. Right. Multiplivision (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Please provide a link that explains that. Hikingboii (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Just… stop reverting the edits. PLEASE. It's going to get tiresome. Multiplivision (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Like I just said, please provide a link that explains what you're talking about. Hikingboii (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Find it yourself. Multiplivision (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems like that I couldn’t link for that. You will have to discuss on Talk:Paw Patrol. I will also have to discuss with another user that knows this (maybe an admin). Hikingboii (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Multiplivision is correct, per MOS:TVCOUNTRY. Barry Wom (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link. Now I get it. Hikingboii (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Teresa Gallagher, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. see WP:DOB Waxworker (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Bourne Supremacy (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Please don't add information that you know is unsourced (and should be sourced) with a CN tag. If you'd like to add information but are struggling with finding a source, you're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Multiplivision! Skydance Media will introduce the Skydance brand on August 7, 2025, after the merger of Skydance Media, National Amusements and Paramount Global. OK! LogoFan2007 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Uh... okay? Multiplivision (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Multiplivision! I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. IzzySwag (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to make these big changes to the lead sentences of the articles, you should first open up a discussion on the talk page. The common consensus has been that these films are animated despite their brief live-action scenes. Zingo156 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages North Vancouver and John Kay. 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) 07:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at A Minecraft Movie, you may be blocked from editing. Barry Wom (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Before wholesale changing images on a bunch of featured articles, it would be best if you brought it up on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"particularly in the process of the metamorphosis of Pitt's character". Shouldn't that be sourced? Multiplivision (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you added an entire new section to the article without providing a single citation. With 906 edits I'd think you must have suspected that might draw notice. DonIago (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My big question is that: how are the VFX companies that have worked on the film in need of sources? Aren't they listed in the credits of the movie? Multiplivision (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Sources are needed if/when you want to claim which VFX companies worked on what effects for the film. We don't typically list VFX companies in an article simply for the sake of listing them, but rather strive to provide some context to the reader. DonIago (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bean movie (1997) poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek Generations Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek II poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek VI poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek III poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek IV poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Star Trek V poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 17:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Talk Studios, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Griffiths.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently changed the King Kong (2005 video game) article to use dmy dates instead of mdy dates. Could you explain this shift in style? It appears to go against MOS:DATERET and MOS:STYLEVAR, but I wanted to check with you first to see what you think. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 04:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I changed the dates to the DMY format because the lead production country is New Zealand. NZ uses the DMY format, so it made sense for the article to use that format. Multiplivision (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Multiplivision! Your additions to Hop (film) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Rockstar Vancouver. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 21:56, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I have reverted your changes to multiple articles in which you are insisting on listing Nickelodeon as a production company. Per WP:BRD, please discuss these changes at the relevant talk page before reverting. Also, please provide an edit summary when making changes. Barry Wom (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

They are a production company though??? That's the exact same thing as saying New Line Cinema is a distributor of all Warner Bros. films post-2008, even though NLC is a production subsidiary of the company.

You are not making any sense. Multiplivision (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

They are not a production company on any of the many films you have been changing. To take just one example, Rugrats Go Wild has in the credits "Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon present...". The "present" caption indicates distribution only. They are NOT production companies. Now cut it out, or you will be reported. Barry Wom (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

okay so the same should be applied to New Line Cinema films then since they ALSO have a "presents" credit Multiplivision (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Barry Wom (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry for how I acted today. Multiplivision (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

report me then, at this point I don't care anymore Multiplivision (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Imagine That (film). Barry Wom (talk) 11:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

did you even READ my other message? Multiplivision (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You need to discuss these changes. Barry Wom (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Charlotte's Web (2006 film). The BBFC reference only confirms the distributor for the UK. You need to provide a source which confirms international distribution. Barry Wom (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t edit war. Hollowdame (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo is not a reliable source for film genres.

Also, "Please don't edit war"? You shouldn't even be talking, because you are also doing it. Multiplivision (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to The Odyssey (2026 film). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:46, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hollowdame (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You're edit warring here. You know not to do that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

When using templates to add RT and/or MC scores, please WP:SUBST them. This is an established consensus at WT:FILM. Thank you! DonIago (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

In line with the above message, especially don't replace prose with templates. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

My question is: why? What's the point in substituting them? Multiplivision (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The full discussion can be found here. You're welcome to start a new discussion if you wish to take issue with those conclusions. DonIago (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Doniago Please don't give misleading advice. Templates can only become subst-only via TfD, not a RfC as per end of that closure, decisions are made in individual articles until a TfD says otherwise.

@Multiplivision Edits like Special:Diff/1328576073 should not be made please as the prose templates are allowed to be used in articles without subst-ing so editors can choose to use them when similar text doesn't already exist, as was added here Special:Diff/1328127422.

MOS:STYLEVAR goes both ways, replacing existing prose with templates shouldn't be done because of that, but replacing templates with prose unnecessarily also shouldn't be done because of that Indagate (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read the discussion I linked to. A clear consensus emerged that editors of film articles (at least those who participated in that discussion) prefer that the templates not be placed into articles without substituting them, and anyone can substitute a template anytime they wish simply by prefacing it with subst. DonIago (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

This. Multiplivision (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read it again, I referred to the close in my above reply, to quote it to be clearer: "For this to be actionable, a discussion at templates for discussion is likely the next step. Until then, the decision to use, not use, or substitute the template is made for each article individually.". A consensus like that is not actionable at all because it's not a TfD. Subst'ing it is the same as changing existing prose to templates, both should not be done. Indagate (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Given your clear pro-template bias in the discussion, it's difficult to consider the views you're espousing here as being entirely objective. I'll quote from the closing comments: "There is consensus to discourage use of Rotten Tomatoes prose and Metacritic film prose. Editors overwhelmingly consider these templates to be unnecessarily restrictive in their style. There are also concerns that the templates conflict with the template guideline about storing text within a template, and that the specific wording used by the templates introduces original research and puffery. Editors generally preferred removing the templates entirely rather than substituting them, but strongly preferred either over retaining them as-is." DonIago (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the consensus of the opinions of the editors who contributed to the RfC yes, but opinions are less important and relevant than the part of the closure I just quoted regarding future action. TfD could make a difference how they're used, not an RfC. Indagate (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

??? Multiplivision (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to raise these kinds of questions surrounding what the RfC did and did not establish, I recommend you start a thread at WT:FILM. DonIago (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that as necessary, they've been discussed enough there. I see the closure as clear enough regarding the decision for using the templates can be made for individual articles, doesn't have to follow that "recommendation" as not a "formal decision". Can discuss with the closer, Thebiguglyalien, if you're still not clear? Indagate (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I swear we have already gone through something like this but you just won't quit it with this immature behavior. If you continue I can assure you I WILL report you again and YOU will be the one that gets reprimanded again. Zingo156 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, watch with the way you talk. Multiplivision (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

Zingo156 (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Multiplivision reported by User:Zingo156 (Result: ). Thank you. —Zingo156 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Multiplivision reported by User:Zingo156 (Result: ). Thank you. Zingo156 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of The Bourne Ultimatum: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The Bourne Ultimatum (soundtrack). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 17:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (The SpongeBob Movie: Search for SquarePants) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring by repeatedly adding the text "[[Twitter]] post on their account". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Dark Knight shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• You may also wish to educate yourself on what a "Presents" credit can mean before you continue editing other articles -
• ToBeFree, FYI, the user is doing it on The Dark Knight now, after the above warning and continuing to fail to engage. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, okay. I'll stop. Multiplivision (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  I hope so. You haven't answered the question below, so I assume Special:Diff/1328856879 was actually for no other reason than undoing one of Zingo156's contributions. You're playing with the fire. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  There was no reason for the revert - looking back, I don't know why I even reverted it in the first place. Multiplivision (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, no worries. Thanks for the clarification. I'll remove the question below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Sorry for causing more drama. Multiplivision (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Interstellar (film). This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Box office grosses are abbreviated to the nearest whole number. Multiplivision (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

And there you go with your third revert. Multiplivision (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you review WP:3RR. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You did the exact same thing though? Multiplivision (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Courtesy ping. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Multiplivision reported by User:FlightTime (Result: ). Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Make a response to my reply on your edit warring talk page message, then get back to me. You are not learning. Multiplivision (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Spider-Man 2 USA poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 18:41, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:SpongeBob Movie 2004 poster USA.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) 03:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that this block will be lifted in another day or so (I lost track of when I get unblocked, I apologize), but I am requesting for an unblock regardless. I understand that my actions of edit warring have constituted a longer punishment than the first block, this time two weeks, and I absolutely take full responsibility, and I will commit to being more attention-focused on Wikipedia:Edit warring, as well as engaging in discussions on talk pages in order to reach a cohesive consensus on a topic. Take as much time as you need. Multiplivision (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

	2000 edits
	Welcome back and looking forward to the next 2000. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the badge! Greatly appreciated Multiplivision (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Wicked (2024 film), you may be blocked from editing. I could only list one article, but there are countless more where you do the same thing. As in WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE and discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 89#Conflict regarding "present(s)" credit, reliable third-party sources are what can determine whether a company that received a "presents" credit produced a film or not; saying "it only has a 'presents' credit" is not the be-all and end-all. IAmNMFlores (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Just because the company distributes the film does NOT equal them getting a producing credit. End of discussion. Multiplivision (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's not even remotely close to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is distributors sometimes produce their own films, more often the big ones like Universal, WB, etc. who can afford to. That's why we use citations to verify whether or not they produced. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to try and make this subject of conflict flare up any further, but I would read the billing blocks of some older films (e.g., the old Fast & Furious movies before the 2009 version); Universal Pictures does receive a presenting credit, but "Neal H. Moritz Productions" is listed in the billing itself.

I understand that sources may say that the distributing company does receive a presenting credit, but should it be necessary, try and come to a clear consensus on the talk page for the film designated. Starting an edit war is not going to be the right solution in a situation like this, and I most certainly am not trying to start one.

I don't want you to make me your enemy, because I'm not trying to come off as that. Thank you. Multiplivision (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

That's the thing, billing blocks aren't the only thing we listen to. We also use third-party sources. That's the key thing you're forgetting. You're removing sourced content for no good rreason. The citations aren't contradicting anything; they're clarifying the credits. IAmNMFlores (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I understand. Please don't make the situation worse, even though I know you aren't trying to. Multiplivision (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I do appreciate your point on WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. However, for the film's country of production, it varies. For example, the Fast & Furious movies often list their country of origin as the United States, while some list them as Germany, Japan, or Spain. We don't include those countries because they purely provide funding through third-party investors, notably Dentsu. In addition, to the Germany country listing, they are there purely from the copyright holder of the first three Fast movies. Multiplivision (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:The Loud House Movie Score Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the film may not meet, can be obtained by going to the file description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the file description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the file page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 15:31, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I made an additional change to the file's description, noting that it is distinguished from the soundtrack album cover. I hope that helps at least. If it doesn't, feel free to let me know. Multiplivision (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Almost completely identical - half the reason why I marked this file for deletion. — Ирука¹³ 15:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how else to improve the description so it doesn't get deleted. Multiplivision (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a description issue, it's a content issue. The file should be deleted. — Ирука¹³ 15:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay then. Multiplivision (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Loud House Movie Score Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of 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) 03:31, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Avatar (2009 film). You've been warned before about deleting content, particularly sourced content, without explanation. This behavior needs to change. DonIago (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Still happening here on my end. Somebody told him "companies that only receive presents credits aren't production companies". I tried telling him that, while that's what we presume by default, if a reliable source says a company did produce (without contradicting any known info about the production) then it's acceptable. IAmNMFlores (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Multiplivision! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Batman Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Bukboy35 (talk) 15 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Curious George (film), a link pointing to the disambiguation page was The Numbersadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Multiplivision I gave a reason to round the nearest million in terms of gross. The lead section and info box need to be consistent with each other and not have decimal places because that's unnecessary. @Evope (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Who specifically taught you? Multiplivision (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Multiplivision- I would highly recommended you stop edit warring. You've been warned/blocked for this same behavior multiple times within just the past few months. Please discuss any issue(s) on talk pages (whether it be the article's, yours, or whoever else's) and stop this edit warring, especially when you give no reason for it. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Fine. Multiplivision (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Here we go again, after you have already been warned about this behaviour regarding Nickelodeon. The BFI is not a reliable source in determining production companies as they also include financing institutions. Barry Wom (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Barry Wom (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip. Barry Wom (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Hotel for Dogs (film). How many final warnings do you need, exactly? To repeat, the BFI is not a reliable source for determining production companies. Barry Wom (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Justice League (film), you may be blocked from editing. IAmNMFlores (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

You need to start listening to what others are saying, and/or engage them in discussion about your edits. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2026 (UTC)