User talk:StarFox0Lover

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you nominated Scary Movie to be a good article. Typically, the nominator is one of the main authors of the article so they are able to answer questions about why it was written a certain way. Nominated articles are also supposed to meet certain criteria, including consistent inline citations, which this one doesn't. I suggest waiting until you've gotten some more practice editing before making any good article nominations to avoid any quickfails, which can be very disappointing. Also be wary of edit warring, it can often be a stumbling block for newer editors. Feel free to make a post at the Teahouse if you ever have any questions! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to ask you to stop trying to reopen the RM, as it was met with unanimous opposition from other users. Under the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, such discussions can be closed early. See also WP:RMEC, specifically the third bullet point listed there. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 15:48, 28 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. Canterbury Tail talk 16:27, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Last Straw (film) (2nd nomination). In general, you should not close discussions in any venue in which you have participated, see WP:BADNAC point 4. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 21:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You linked the wrong archive. StarFox0Lover (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, my point still stands. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it! StarFox0Lover (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You sent a message my way saying "The discussion was closed per WP:SNOWCLOSE". Has the discussion been formally closed yet? It does not appear to have been. You are not supposed to remove AfD templates until that time has passed. The editor who closes the discussion will normally do that. Οἶδα (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering what your rationale for the close at Talk:Twelve Angry Men (stage play)#Requested move 22 December 2025 is. I was hoping for more consensus after my !vote regarding nom's rationale that relies on either uncommon usage of "stage play" vs "teleplay" and/or a factual misunderstanding. Stage play doesn't appear to be used as a disambiguator anywhere else and I'm concerned it introduces new ambiguities as the stage version has itself been adapted into audio drama, etc. The Twelve Angry Men articles are a bit of a tangled web because there's so many versions, with Twelve Angry Men being primary. Thanks BrechtBro (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Just because I have been watching this page, and warnings posted on it, for a while due to an AFD notification, I would recommend that you do not close any more discussions for a while. You joined Wikipedia a few days ago and are doing actions expected of admins and other higher-level users who know the policy extremely well; you are not to that level yet based on your hasty and contentious closures. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

They did the same thing for the requested move over at Talk:Larimer Square, and their rationale was "canceled and immediately moved". @StarFox0Lover, RMs should not be closed early, with exceptions for snowball clauses (as I mentioned here) and uncontroversial requests like removing redundant disambiguation (like the case I'm talking about now). But since you're still new to English Wikipedia, you shouldn't be doing this at all. Please familiarize yourself with the RM venue and participate enough before closing such discussions yourself. See WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The same goes for other discussion venues, such as XfD. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Ribnitz-Damgarten (Amt), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not revert a valid discussion close. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Despite everyone's comments you continue with this blatant unconstructive behavior and you appear to be making zero effort to understand the process. Same with closing your own requested moves despite no one even voting. This needs to stop or I will likely bring it up at WP:ANI. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

I second the request from Seacactus 13. Other than troubling me with speedy-closing all your AfD nominations, you achieve nothing by doing this. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Twelve Angry Men (stage play). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. BrechtBro (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

For your continued disruptive editing, all over the encyclopaedia in many different areas and types of disruption, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours. I fear the way you're editing that when you return, if you continue the same pattern, this won't be your only block. You're clearly refusing to listen to anything anyone is saying to you and it's starting to look like you're just using Wikipedia for your own amusement rather than trying to improve the project. Since you like films, to quote Captain Pike, "I dare you to do better." Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 02:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

StarFox0Lover (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I have disabled the help template as your unblock request is pending review. Please be patient. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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

StarFox0Lover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am requesting for an unblock because I now recognize my edits were disruptive under WP:DE. I mistakenly continued to disruptive edits despite concerns from other editors. I have also realize that I failed to engage properly with other users on the talk page before re-inserting my changes. If and when unblocked, I commit to follow the consensus-building process and will not make disruptive edits anymore. StarFox0Lover (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(For the record, I've declined this already on UTRS, not substantively but because it was a duplicate. If another admin feels I shouldn't be handling this talk page one as well, feel free to revert and come slap me with a trout!)

To StarFox0Lover: your persistent edit warring and disruptive editing continued, with barely any engagement with, and possibly even notice of, the numerous advisory and warning messages posted here, until you got blocked, and then you suddenly saw the proverbial light; forgive me, but I find that a tad disingenuous. Personally, I think you were lucky to get away with such a short block, and I feel it will do you well to sit this one out and think carefully about what in your behaviour got you blocked, and what would need to change once your block expires to avoid getting into trouble again. Because if you carry on in this manner, I also fear this won't be your last block, and the next one is likely to be considerably longer. You still have it within your power to prevent that, you just need to work out how. I'm declining your unblock request. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

StarFox0Lover (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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

StarFox0Lover (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I am requesting for an unblock because I now recognize my edits were disruptive under WP:DE. I mistakenly continued to disruptive edits despite concerns from other editors. I have also realize that I failed to engage properly with other users on the talk page before re-inserting my changes. If and when unblocked, I commit to follow the consensus-building process and will not make disruptive edits anymore. StarFox0Lover (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block ends in a few hours. Wait it out, and follow those guidelines you said you would follow. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that StarFox0Lover sent me an email basically identical to the unblock request above. I declined it and told them to use their talk page instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Same here. I'm not even an admin. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Same here. This mass-emailing doesn't exactly inspire good faith. Owen× ☎ 03:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I've turned off their ability to send emails, since they're clearly abusing it. Note, do not reply to their email unless you want them to have your personal email address. Canterbury Tail talk 03:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not reply to their email. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I received 3 emails from them, all identical, 15 minutes apart until I reblocked with emails disabled. Doesn't inspire faith. Canterbury Tail talk 03:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I have also received this email. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Make that 5. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 04:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel left out⸮ :( ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would you feel left out—oh, I just noticed you're using the irony punctuation, making that statement sarcasm. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Six. BrechtBro (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You've a page full of warnings and have been ignoring what everyone says to you for a while now, but you get blocked and suddenly you understand our policies and have had a change of heart in less than 7 minutes? Call me cynical if you wish, but I have a hard time believing that. Canterbury Tail talk 03:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the LLM they've used to compose that lovely request understands our policies. Owen× ☎ 03:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t use a LLM. StarFox0Lover (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Retracted. Owen× ☎ 03:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Stop removing the declined appeals, you are not allowed to do that per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. Not only you removed mine, you've since removed RickinBaltimore's one also. One more, and I'll extend your block to indef and block you from this page as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to overstep, but I've gone ahead and done so now. It's clear that the disruption was going to continue after the block expired, and I had a lot of concern about the abuse of email for such a short block to begin with. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)