User talk:CriticallyThinking

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! clpo13_(talk) 22:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello, I'm Wallyfromdilbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tom & Jerry (2021 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Sonic the Hedgehog (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2021 (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, as you did at Sonic the Hedgehog (film), you may be blocked from editing. Stop inserting original research and your personal interpretations. You need to use the article's talk page if your proposed changes have been reverted. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi CriticallyThinking! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Scoob! that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. This is not a minor edit and is also not even supported by the cited source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

February 2022

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Piotr Jr. (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:THR Tim Story 6324 HIREZ-MAIN-2021-THR-1614195058-compressed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:THR Tim Story 6324 HIREZ-MAIN-2021-THR-1614195058-compressed.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Tony-Cervone.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tony-Cervone.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog film

@CriticallyThinking: According to the source in the article lead, the statement "criticized its screenplay" already covers the "lack of ambition" criticism. It's the same thing. Articles are supposed to have a neutral tone. Contributor19 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Please remember to fill out your references when you add them. Bare URLs are frowned upon. You'll find that under "Cite" there is a subheading that provides templates that even autofill when pressing the magnifying glass once the URL is input.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Coyote vs. Acme

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coyote vs. Acme, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Eric B. & Rakim, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ~~mAyLiNgOeEd (Talk to me!) (My contributions to Wikipedia📜) 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello, I'm Escape Orbit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tom & Jerry (2021 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tom and Jerry: The Movie, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Knuckles (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingpin. 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) 05:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry

Stop trying to edit the article without references or credible sources I know you love it but Wikipedia is supposed to be objective VeryFirst (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article says that the film became a success on Netflix with audiences who re-appraised the film. You've reverted it without reading it. CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

At least try to compromise, you can keep the produciton stuff you added but stop trying to make like the film is now better received, beign in the top 10 in Netflix doesn't mean that much in the grand scheme of things VeryFirst (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 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) 15:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi CriticallyThinking! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of The Looney Tunes Show several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:The Looney Tunes Show, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning: Edit warring on The Looney Tunes Show

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Looney Tunes Show. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Looney Tunes Show. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

If you continue to exacerbate this, I will be filing a report to Wikipedia administrators.

Ciscocat (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not my point of view. Like I said, if you can't be bothered to read sources, the joke and issue is on you. Critics hated the series for how it felt like a generic sitcom that never stayed true to the Looney Tunes and what made them unique. It's been this way, when it released. CriticallyThinking (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Given your edit history, it's clear you have an axe to grind against the series (for full transparency, I haven't seen any of its episodes) and it's disingenuous to act like you're just bringing more sources in. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

When the show first released, it was ewually as hated as Teen Titans Go! was. The first reviews of the show that were published were also courtesy of ToonZone, who all hated it for its lack of ambition and departures from the source material. Its reviews were mixed. CriticallyThinking (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

How can it be as equally hated as Teen Titans Go!, yet also just get mixed reviews? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at The Looney Tunes Show, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ciscocat (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is another form of warning on Wikipedia regarding the combination of sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated, which you have done a few times before. And for what it’s worth, I have no dog in the fight of whether the show is good or not. I have no problem with including negative reviews. But please do not project your own biases as accusations towards myself. Ciscocat (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The reviews, as cited by the sources, criticized the show for lacking in the source material's spirit and creativity with sitcom-izing the characters. It is not a personal bias. Your edit-warring is the reason why you got banned from editing other pages, like the T&J one. Give it up. CriticallyThinking (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ciscocat hasn't been banned from editing those other pages, and it's clear from your edit history that a personal bias against the show is a major factor in your edits. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a stupid edit war, but for the record, I was abiding by the sources. Under visual effects and animation, I was attempting to embed quotes from citations, which is a pretty safe bet, that you felt the need to pull out and hastily paper over for some reason. You seemed very hung up over the specific choice of wording as some form of misinformation, which is much bigger than what it actually was. Tell me, why was it such a problem to embed quotes directly from the source? I genuinely want to know. Ciscocat (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I highly advise you to read the sources again, because yes, the "2D+" direction T&J took innovated and was a first-ever attempt at duplicating 2D animation by a CGI workflow who can do it in less than half the time than a 2D workflow. Also quoted by Tim Story himself. Much like how you ignore the reasons why critics hated TLTS, as proven with your petty edit warring and throwing a fit when it doesn't go your way. CriticallyThinking (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

“First-ever attempt at duplicating 2D animation by a CGI workflow” is a very broad phrase and in that case, no it wasn’t the first-ever. Maybe that specific method, but that’s beside the point. This is an example of you taking a lot of liberties with sources and treating quotes that aren’t necessarily statistical as such. Also, again, I took actual quotes from the interview and kept the paraphrasing minimal/neutral on that occasion. I fail to see how that wasn’t reading the sources. Ciscocat (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It was the first attempt at completely duplicating 2D animation with CGI software, and it introduced many aoftware tools to help get the part. The production behind the film, even the animators, said that the demands were high and unlike anything a VFX team was used to. Because CGI is infamous for its realism and creative limitations, in spite of how less time-consuming it is. The sources said it. CriticallyThinking (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Make sure you’re quoting or attributing this to certain interviewees, then. This is beside the point, though. Evidently from the edit logs, I’m certainly not the first person to make edits you disagree with, and unlike most recently when the article was locked to all users, you have an actual one week block from editing the page earlier this year, as seen on this very page. Ciscocat (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You were called out by an admin for "not helping" at all. You certainly weren't helping and caused the page to be blocked for vandalism (all from you), and still aren't today. Tim Story himself described "2D+ animation", introduced with T&J, as a CGI animation workflow who can replicate 2D animation for less time than a traditional animation workflow would take via drawing every cel. The Looney Tunes Show, also cited by the sources, was infamously criticized for its "generic" writing and direction that never embraces the uniqueness of the Looney Tunes. Like I said, the sources say everything. Putting in your personal bias and ego doesn't re-write history. CriticallyThinking (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What personal bias do you think he has? He admits that he doesn't care about the show at all.

I've also read the sources you gave, and nowhere do they use the terms innovative when describing the animation in the T&J movie, and it seems to be an assumption you've made. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources described it's "hyperkinetic" and is completely different than VFX animators did prior. Tim Story coined it as "2D+" animation, where it bypasses the creative limitations of CGI but took advantage of its quick time to animate and introduced multiple software techniques to get the part and entirely replicate 2D animation with it. Even a generated tool for the outlines was introduced here, alongside a sketchviz phase where 2D artists guided the 3D animators with expressions over a rough edit. Read the sources, once again. CriticallyThinking (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't just extrapolate terms like "innovative" from the sources like that, it's veering into original research - it seems to come from your own personal bias towards the film. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yet the production team, animators, and director Tim Story himself say otherwise. The animation and production demands were high and differed than any other CGI project, and it completely invented "2D+ animation" which is 2D animation replicated by a CG workflow. It's not a personal bias. It's just a fact. "Coyote vs. ACME" is the only other film to have followed this route, and chances are, we might not ever see it again as projects might even soon revert back to traditional 2D animation. CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Where in the sources did they use the term "innovative"? Again, you can't just use terms like that which aren't reflected in the sources used. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources called it "hyperkinetic", which means completely innovative and different than the usual. The animation director said it was different than anything he and any VFX animator are used to. Interviews with the animators called the process "daunting" to replicate 2D animation under CG's creative limitations and introduced many software tools to get the part. Director Tim Story also confirmed that 2D sketchviz artists were added to the workflow to even guide the animators during many rough edits to draw-over poses and expressions of the characters. A sketchviz phase was never done to add to an animation team. "2D+" animation was innovated here, and was described by Story as 2D animation but if it was duplicated by a VFX team. Read the sources. CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Hyperkinetic" means something that's energetic, which is a good way to describe animation for cartoony characters. But that's not the same thing as calling it innovative.

The animators calling the process daunting is how many would describe their time on any film productions, which isn't to take away from what they did. Every new project has its own challenges, including for this film, and that's commendable. But again, you're reading too much into how they word things. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

a "hyperkinetic clash of styles" means beyond the usual. Your bias does not re-write history nor change the fact that it completely bypassed CG's creative limitations and replicated 2D animation with first-ever software and a direction that no VFX animator prior did nor were used to. It innovated and brought it to the next level. https://www.framestore.com/work/tom-jerry CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, it's clearly describing the energetic nature of the animation. And where's this idea that they were the first to ever do this? It would've likely been the first for the team involved personally, but the first production ever to do so? Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The animation director, who comes from a CGI workflow, said that the demands for the production and animation were high and differed from anything a VFX workflow did prior. Hence the "2D+ animation" in the film, in which even countless software tools that the CGI team considered pivotal to duplicate the look and feel of classic 2D was first created here. https://www.animationmagazine.net/features/frenemies-in-the-big-city-tom-and-jerry-director-tim-story-team-discuss-the-new-hybrid-pic/ CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

That's nice to hear, but again it's not the same as calling the production truly innovative, or the first of its kind. As Ciscocat, this was not the first CG film to try and duplicate the look of 2D, and also not the first to develop new tools for such a process. You're extrapolating a lot from a little here, and seem unable to admit your own bias for this film. Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the post, again. It invented newly developed software considered pivotal by a CGI workflow to replicate 2D animation. It has never been done before and was only done again in Coyote vs. ACME. Stop being stuck on your ego and accept that re-writing history doesn't change anything and doesn't change your history of vandalism to be biased. CriticallyThinking (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re not making any sense lol. You’re taking adjectives that are meant to be positive descriptors and taking them as fact. If you’re unable to parse the difference, then that places a lot of doubt on our ability to take your editing decisions in good faith. Ciscocat (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's awful if it didn't innovate. But the production behind the film, cited with sources, claimed that the demands were high and unlike anything else a CG workflow did. It created new software techniques and pushed the limit to break the rules and traditions of CGI entirely. It innovated and bypassed the realism and creative limitations of CG to create an exact replica of classic 2D while taking less time to animate than traditional cel animation. No project did it prior, and nothing else might be done like it again aside from Coyote vs. ACME. Stop throwing a fit because a movie you didn't like managed to be unique. CriticallyThinking (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re repeating yourself, and also clearly showing a bias towards the movie and indicating it has interfered with properly editing the article. This doesn’t really make a case in your favour. For what I hope is the last time, nobody is editing the article to skew it away from neutrality. We’re trying to make sure it’s properly sourced and reliable, and that you seem to be hung up on the way it’s worded tells me that’s your modus operandi and the very thing you seem to think we are trying to do. Ciscocat (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Name a single CGI project before T&J with software for hand-drawn animation techniques to create an exact replica of 2D animation, even with help from a 2D sketchviz team guiding the animators to help break the rules of CG completely. Your bias towards the movie is literally the reason you got blocked from editing pages and that it was protected from vandalism. An admin called you out for it. It's just a fact. Move on and stop throwing a fit because the film actually pushed boundaries in a production when demands were confirmed to be incredibly high and different than anything a CGI team did prior. CriticallyThinking (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You're still putting words in Ciscocat's mouth, accusing him of bias while being biased yourself. Why else are you trying to push such a positive view of the film? Harryhenry1 (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There has never been a single CGI project that attempted to create an exact replica of 2D animation, as confirmed by the production team who literally come from a CG background. It's innovative and especially considered daunting for a CGI workflow, since 2D has far more creative freedom. Like I said, I'm not biased. Don't take my word for it. Throwing a fit won't re-write history. Innovation is when something new is invented and introduced. "2D+ animation", coined by the creative team, is something unheard of and completely different to what CG animators are used to. And no, it isn't merely cel-shading either. CriticallyThinking (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

“2D plus” was an unofficial term that the director came up with. What I glean from the article(s) is that it’s 3D animated models directed to look like 2D through rendering and animatics and some minor new software was developed to achieve that effect. And as previously stated there are plenty of high-profile examples of a similar process so this isn’t majorly different. Ciscocat (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. As the cited sources claim, the director called this direction as if 2D animation was replicated by a CGI workflow. CGI takes less time to animate than 2D, but also has less creative freedom, and the team created many software tools to help them break the traditions of CGI, from the stiffness to lifeless realism, and completely clone 2D animation with it. The look and feel in every shot. It'd be better to give up before admins once again will call you and Cameron out for vandalizing out of pure personal bias and throw a fit. CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you actually think the admins are gonna take your side on this? God almighty. Ciscocat (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re treating this as a pissing contest over the film, which is not why I’m here. I’m here to punch up the article. Also, “draw-overs” are not new to 3D animation at all; see this interview with Brad Bird where he talks about drawing over 3D-animated scenes on a whiteboard for guidance. And of course plenty of CG animation has varying degrees of homage to 2D (Paperman, Feast, SpiderVerse, Peanuts Movie, Mitchells vs the Machines). But again that’s beside the point. You get really heated when we try to rein in the bias of the article and imply it’s anything less than what you think it is. When a crew is talking up their own project there’s a difference between opinion and fact. Ciscocat (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

speak for yourself. The admins protected the page out of your vandalism from pure bias alone rather than actually reading sources. You constantly argue and throw a fit just for the sake of being a contrarian rather than because you fail to accept the fact that something new and innovative happened behind production. It's just a fact. Move along CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Defending a sitcom that critics even hated upon release for its lack of creativity and faithfulness to the Looney Tunes doesn't help. At least with T&J, I know the reception was negative and am not making it look like it was positively received from bias. You have an obsession over me for little reason, even when I cite sources and info from research. Seek therapy. CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you please cool it with the personal attacks? MiasmaEternal☎ 23:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You’re not even citing quotes from the Animation Magazine article properly. And somehow I’m damaging the wiki page? Ciscocat (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You outright removed countless cited information that backed up the production team's actual intent. Your quote unquote "contributions" are what caused admins to protect the page from vandalism to the point where you got called out for it yet again, a few days ago.

Admit it. The only reason you're doing this is literally because you are outright obsessive over me, for whatever reason. Even after I cut ties with you directly.

I beg you to seek therapy. And please cite actual information that doesn't appease your own ego and personal bias. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not the one lashing out at other users for editing that page. I’m not the one running around the Internet trying to defend a children’s film. Ciscocat (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You wouldn't bother stalking me and editing a page to appease your own personal bias, if you were.

Your actions completely contradict your own words. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You never take any responsibility for your own actions. You can only throw accusations of bias back at me and put words in my mouth, you have a history of plagiarism and lied about leaving Letterboxd on purpose after getting banned. You belittle others’ intelligence constantly and yet are only ever at war with everyone. Why? At what cost? Why do you conduct yourself like this online? Ciscocat (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I constantly cite sources with accurate information relating to it, and yes, I left Letterboxd on purpose and have already readied a review website where I already have a whole bunch of review documents planned.

Why do you conduct yourself like this online, then? Why are you so obsessed chasing after someone and stalking someone even after being told that I wanted nothing to do with you? You're merely throwing a fit when things don't go your way. But hey, if I'm the "plagiarist", at least I can actually elaborate my points of view based on my own personal experience. Please seek therapy. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, you were called out by admins twice by now, and you might as well consider getting banned on here for vandalism and only want things to go your way.

Just face history and re-writing it won't change anything. Find something better to do than to stalk people on the internet, even after deliberately cutting ties with an egotistical jerk. At this point, I can assume you're either a bot or a troll. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this because I like the Sonic movies? Ciscocat (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No. It's because you're a manchild who never takes any responsibility for his actions and only wants things to go his way, as shown by your behavior on this site alone. Do yourself a favour, read a book, and find something healthy that doesn't depend on soending months stalking the same person on every social media site. It's not doing any favours on your reputation, and the more you keep this up, you're more than likely to be banned on this platform. As you were on many other sites, like Twitter for the millionth time. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Ciscocat (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, for someone so obsessed with editing the T&J page to suit his own personal bias and randomly brings the Sonic films into this conversation, at least T&J cared about faithfully portraying the characters, had good-effort and engaging animation and visuals, and actually fun and whimsical worldbuilding over Fish Out of Water real-world digestible corporate slop. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

But what if I like the Sonic movies? Ciscocat (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Also it sounds like you’re being a little bit biased right now. Ciscocat (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, can you cut out the personal attacks? This is unhealthy not just for you (in terms of the effect that anger and stress has on your body), but for Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration. MiasmaEternal☎ 05:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m ready to move on from it at this point. I can only try to make the best edits I can. If that means someone lashing out at me then I just have to disengage. Ciscocat (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence sounds a little bit like you’re projecting. Let me ask you, with all that has gone down, do you think your own reputation is in good standing? Ciscocat (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It's all in the sources, bud. You can't re-write history to fit your own bias. The more obsessive you are of chasing after me, the more I suggest you seek help. CriticallyThinking (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m talking about all the bridges you’ve burnt, the insults you’ve slung, the people you have harassed to defend a kids movie. You know what you’ve done, but you don’t care. And frankly neither do I anymore because there’s no saving you. You strike me as bitter and sad, and I don’t know what else I could get out of this other than to strive not to act the way that you have. Adieu. Ciscocat (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You're the one who started vandalizing countless pages, made constant posts harassing and stalking me (even after wanting nothing to do with you), and to this day, still won't leave me alone because my "personal bias" apparently reads a production history spoken by creative members themselves. Please. A better way to redeem yourself would be to grow a pair and actually read books before vandalizing pages solely because you're obsessed with me, because at least I'm not acting like I'm some perfectionist. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was right, you are really bitter. You can’t actually address anything I’ve brought up. If you didn’t mistreat a long line of other users, maybe I wouldn’t have commented. But you were right about one thing, I do have better things to do than interact with you. You’re so repetitive in your vitriol that the last thing I would want is to turn out the same. So, good day. Ciscocat (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

In other words, I'm bitter for calling you out on your actions. As did other admins on this site called you out for. Find something better to do then spending months on the internet stalking someone who never wanted anything to do with you. Get off your high horse and admit that you're proven wrong. Actions speak louder than words, as does vandalism to boost your ego would compared to a simple paragraph comment. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Cheer up. Ciscocat (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I was actually cheerful without the presence of an egotistical jerk like you around. Now quit replying to the same person who literally DMed you a message with regards to not wanting anything to do with you. And here you are still obsessively stalking me. CriticallyThinking (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know about that. You seem to get really mad at other people who are apparently biased too. And kids shows. You really hate kids shows. Ciscocat (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Enough of this. I explained in detail why the wording you keep insisting on is objective poor, yet you don't listen. To anyone. There has been no substantial change to the article content in years, because the show ended years ago, and there's been no new critical assessments of note. There's no need for your edits at all. So WP:DROPTHESTICK already. You've been blocked for edit warring before. You should have learned from that experience. oknazevad (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning was because of how lengthy it was, so therefore, I simplified it to the criticisms that were most relevant to the sources. Thank you and have a good day. CriticallyThinking (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously gonna accuse everyone who tries to retain a neutral point of view on the TLTS show article as having personal bias (including someone who admits to not even liking the show)? While writing that the Tom & Jerry movie was “claimed to be a world-first adoption in animation” without a source? Sounds like every accusation is a confession with you. Ciscocat (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The source on AnimationMagazine.org said that the draw-over phase was a new addition and that it innovated countless software techniques pivotal for a CGI workflow to clone a traditional approach. The team said it's approach was different to any CGI project. It's Not my fault that you can't handle history. CriticallyThinking (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s not that I can’t handle “history,” it’s that you can’t just write phrases like “world-first adoption in animation” without at least attributing it to references. That falls way out of the neutral point of view. It’s nothing to do with the actual sources and everything to do with how they’re embedded and worded within the article. Similarly, a word like “unfaithfulness” isn’t as neutral as “differences” and shouldn’t be used as a catch-all term for the critical consensus. If one critic in particular said it was unfaithful then that could be paraphrased or directly quoted in the passage mentioning their review. Again I have no real opinion on this show. It has been established that you do though, and you’re only leading your arguments with “stop trying to make it look better/sugarcoat it.” Ciscocat (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It was claimed as a worst-first adoption by an animation director who largely derives from a CGI background, as one of its many software techniques to clone classic 2D. And yes, the critics hated how it didn't stay true to the Looney Tunes either. Now find something better to do than cyber-stalking the same person who never wanted anything to do with you. CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

A “worst-first adoption,” eh? Typo aside, did he actually say, in the article, “world-first adoption?” Ciscocat (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No one's denying critics had negative views towards the show, again even someone who didn't like the series either thought your edits were going too far. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already posted on Wikipedia’s administrator board under incidents about this, should we file another report? Ciscocat (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Also if you’re gonna argue, do it in one of the talk pages, not the edit logs. Ciscocat (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is a biased enjoyer of The Looney Tunes Show, apparently. Ciscocat (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania

I swear to god, do not start editing the Hotel Transylvania page to start putting words in peoples’ mouths. I can only surmise you did that once I brought the film up, because you realized I had some sort of point about Tom & Jerry not being the trendsetter you believe it to be. I genuinely could not believe you did that. And it may have been a very minor edit, but it tells me you want to essentially play God on Wikipedia and squish anything that might make your points moot. Ciscocat (talk) 04:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If you claim to do research as much as you seemingly do, Genndy Tartakovsky's goal with the animation was to "push reality", meaning to give a sense of exaggeratedness inspired by 2D animation with the realism of CGI. But I'm not surprised you reverted a cited edit like a coward, since you're obsessively doing this since you joined this site. CriticallyThinking (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry, but your edit to Hotel Transylvania was clearly done to try and prove your own love of the Tom and Jerry movie for being supposedly so innovative. There's enjoying a movie, and then there's loving a movie so much you're trying to revise history in this way. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Both movies followed completely different directions. Hotel Transylvania pushed CGI animation, in a way Madagascar did YEARS ago, to blend the traditions and reality of CGI with a sense of cartooniness that would remind you of 2D animation and inspired by it. Tom & Jerry, meanwhile, was a completely duplication of the 2D style and traditions required to animate it. Even if I hated a project, I wouldn't go as far as to vandalize articles from words out of my mouth rather than what productions say. CriticallyThinking (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

So why did you change the wording on the Hotel Transylvania article? What needed "correcting" here? Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I recognize that Hotel Transylvania is more traditionally detailed 3D animation inspired by 2D, while Tom & Jerry is going for the simplicity of 2D animation as far as character models and some of the movement. My comparison is more to do with things that you have represented as new methods on the latter film’s article, such as the whole draw-over thing. And there are a number of other films that have used similar methods for other aspects of that film’s animation. At best, it’s a combination of things that were previously established. Ciscocat (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Every frame behind the detail in T&J's character model and movements were a complete replication of how 2D animation was hand-crafted and animated, hence why they further even added a team of 2D artists to even sketch-over character poses and expressions over a rough edit when the CGI still wasn't as close to the 2D look and feel of the characters. It was, in essense, computer-generated hand-drawn animation achieved in half the time a 2D look and feel is achieved by drawing every frame. Hotel Transylvania, and I should mention even films like Madagascar, blended stylization inspired by 2D with realism of CGI. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

No. It is virtually impossible for this 3D animated film to be “a complete replication of how 2D animation was hand-crafted and animated,” and that tells me you’re unable to actually lecture me on this. Where did they say they were “drawing every frame?” This is something you have made up, and tells me your position is weak. And again, the sketching over was done on Hotel Transylvania and even that article mentions it was done on Tangled. This is an increasingly common technique in big budget animation and not unique to T&J. Ciscocat (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's "impossible" to you, bu not to the team behind it. Every visual 2D detail from the rendering and outlines, to every motion 2D detail from even in-betweening and motion lines, have been seamlessly incorporated into the animation by many software techniques introduced and were considered pivotal to the CGI team to capture and replicate classic 2D.

It was computer-animated 2D, which replicates 2D in so much less time than how long a traditional workflow would achieve it when drawing every cel. That was the direction introduced and pioneered there with T&J, and the sketchviz phase, like I said, was a new kind of pre-vis done by the artists to guide the animators in help making the CGI model even accurate to the look AND feel of 2D animation, rather than merely being inspired by it. T&J and Coyote vs. ACME were the only films to have added "sketchviz", to clone classic 2D. The rigs in said films even included motion lines and in-betweening sourced directly from 2D animation. Those were absent in HT, which, as said, was an inspiration by 2D than a replication of it.

Their directions were completely different than each other. Read the sources once again. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You are going in circles and not actually explaining anything I don’t already know. You’re explaining all this stuff to me, but I’ve done research and I fail to see how any of this is innovative or unique to T&J. The drawing over isn’t especially new. Even in the realm of pre-viz, many films have done rough sketches for CGI characters so I don’t know why you think that’s new; it just tells me you’re unaware and only have eyes for this movie. I’m sorry, I wish I saw what you see in it, but you come off as overly enthusiastic about the film in a way that has clearly damaged your ability to remain neutral on it. Ciscocat (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool it with the insults, that only tells me your confidence in your points is crumbling. I would not say hanging onto a single phrase is remarkably astute research (and you might as well have cited that), but it was clearly done in haste to try and dispel the vague notion that your favourite film (let’s face it, it is) was anything less than innovative. I’m honestly a little horrified that you went and did that. It also doesn’t change the fact that the methods you have leveraged in favour of T&J, such as draw-over and unconventional rigging, were used in HT and a number of other high-profile projects beforehand. And the film’s crew saying it was unlike anything they had done before does not mean it was never done before, because they do not speak for every animation and visual effects department in the world. I don’t know why you’re riding so much on trying to protect this film’s reputation in arbitrary ways, but it’s an incredibly shallow goal and it’s led to increasingly destructive behaviour on your end. Ciscocat (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hotel Transylvania did not have a draw-over "sketchviz" phase and literal in-between rigging. All it merely did was make CGI animation more extreme with its poses, more inspired by 2D rather than a replication of 2D, which is something Sony Imageworks even carried over into films like "Storks". Read the sources again. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you miss the part in the article where it says the director drew over the 3D animators’ work as feedback? Which is the same as the Animation Magazine article said about T&J where the draw-over was also feedback to make it resemble 2D? Also, define to me what “in-between rigging” is because I do not recall that from the AM article. You’re probably mistaking it for breaking the rigs to exaggerate, which again was done in HT. There is a lot of overlap between the two articles/production techniques, in fact. Given that you had to run over to HT’s article and add a random unnecessary edit, I surmise that you feel there’s a hole in your reasoning and expect that you may try to expand these twisted words across that and multiple other articles, but this will only make a case for us that you are vandalizing Wikipedia. Your emotionally fuelled responses such as calling me a “coward” do not help your argument either, and are ironic considering that you felt the need to go mess with another film’s production section when I brought it up. Ciscocat (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That isn't the draw-over phase the T&J crew were talking about. It was a new kind of pre-vis done by the artists to guide the animators in help making the CGI model even accurate to the look AND feel of 2D animation, rather than merely being inspired by it. T&J and Coyote vs. ACME were the only films to have added "sketchviz", to clone classic 2D. The rigs in said films even included motion lines and in-betweening sourced directly from 2D animation. Those were absent in HT, which, as said, was an inspiration by 2D than a replication of it. Their directions were different. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

From the T&J Animation Magazine scripture article:

“‘We changed our workflow to include a 2D draw-over phase to enable us to refine and better sculpt shapes we were not able to fully achieve in the animation process.’”

Which I strongly infer means sculpting the 3D models during the animation of those models.

Just for direct comparison:

“And similar to Glen Keane on Disney's Tangled, Tartakovsky drew over the footage to illustrate the extreme poses that he desired. The animators were then on their own to figure out how to translate it.”

Your wording keeps contorting and changing, which tells me you’ve run into a dead end. What is “motion lines and in-betweening sourced directly from 2D animation” supposed to mean? It sounds like you’re inventing things on the spot. Ciscocat (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a video that shows how the "sketchviz" technique worked in Tom & Jerry. It was completely unique to the film, and Coyote vs. ACME is the only other film to have done this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aK0MFQrPKI&ab_channel=StudioRedRobin CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

FYI, when 2D characters would even run, there would be lines of motion tracing their action and even in-between shadows in frames. T&J even achieved those little details sourced from 2D with CG software, in the vein of classic 2D and of the original characters from the Golden Age of Animation. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel queasy seeing that you’re ripping chunks out of the Hotel Transylvania article for no reason in the edit history. THAT is vandalism, and it’s low even for you. I assume me bringing it up poked some kind of hole in your argument, otherwise you would not be doing this. Cut it out, for your sake, because we have a very strong case to make to admins against you for doing this. Ciscocat (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You literally removed the quotations I added in the source, like the stylized take, that proves what they were going for: A blend of the realism from CGI with the exaggeratedness inspired by 2D animation via stylization. WHO is the vandal again? Just like how you always were in the T&J article... typical cyber-stalking Cameron. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

These personal insults aren't helping anyone. Your Hotel Transylvania edits only seem to have happened because of this argument about the T&J movie. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I proved you wrong about The Peanuts Movie being a cloning of computer animation, and I did it once again here. Completely different directions. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• traditional I meant

CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lmao what? You proved him wrong about the Peanuts Movie being a clone of computer animation? It is computer animation. I know that’s probably not what you meant to say but I can sense you’re getting a bit flustered/desperate. You’re explaining stuff that we already know as if we don’t know it. Ciscocat (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Peanuts was to my knowledge just brought up as an example of CG homaging 2D animation to "varying degrees", not that it was a literal clone of 2D animation. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Lol somebody’s angry now. You deleted chunks of the paragraphs in what I can only assume was without much thought, and reworded stuff that didn’t need rewording. I assume the insults come out when I strike a nerve. Ciscocat (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You're now poking fun of someone for being quote unquote "angry" and literally admits to reverting my edit when "I strike a nerve". Someone is triggered, I see. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You are twisting my words and it’s really funny. This is great. Thank you. Ciscocat (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You're still talking over a potshot. If you have nothing more to add, surrender before having another article to vandalize. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why you made your Hotel Transylvania edits. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I added more information and quotes from the true intentions behind its direction that you took as "me removing information". Before obsesseively insulting me and chasing after me, it's best to just read sources. Just like how I cited The Peanuts Movie's approach to animation was stop-motion inspired, you'd see that as me "removing information". Do better. CriticallyThinking (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ve only seen you insulting me on this occasion, and frankly a lot of the original edits you made weren’t productive. Some of the recent ones are a little better, but it was clearly born out of a spite directed at that film once you realized you needed to defend T&J by editing the page incrementally. Every time somebody tries to clean up after your poorly structured jargon, you assume they have a bias, but every accusation seems to be a confession with you. Ciscocat (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I edit pages all the time to make it more clear. I made the most recent edit on The Peanuts Movie to show what the animation was aiming for. Hotel Translvania's approach to animation was quoted as a personal touch exclusive for 2D veteran Genndy Tartakovsky himself. He wanted to subvert the realistic traditions of CGI with the added stylization and cartooniness reminiscent/inspired by 2D animation rather than a copy of it. And it was all based on his signature style and what he wanted to do with "pushing reality". You even admitted that you revert my edits out of a pure trigger rather than going over them. Give up. CriticallyThinking (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Do not start acting like you’re suddenly an expert or passionate about these films because we know full well why you’re behaving like this. And I clearly said that I struck a nerve with you when you began to retaliate with a bunch of insults, so you’re either lying or were unable to comprehend that. I’ll let you pick. Ciscocat (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I've edited on this site years before I even knew you, and even then I barely know you to this day. The words and quotes are all the sources. Your obsessive behavior is literslly what caused a page to be protected from vandalism, a month ago. And if you won't leave me alone, I will geniunely report you for not only vandalizing, but for cyber-stalking. CriticallyThinking (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Well if you’re gonna take it that far, then sure, I won’t get involved in your B.S. anymore. But I will not be the last person to take issue with how you conduct yourself on this site. Ciscocat (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been months since I outright messaged you that I wanted nothing to do with you and your ego, before you got banned on Twitter for like the millionth time. You're bringing this to yourself, and even after this, you're getting away with cyber-stalking. I am indeed convinced you are a troll. CriticallyThinking (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, chill. I’ll block your username on this site. But I’m not beneath reporting you. Ciscocat (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you were only able to parrot things I said back at me with the context warped, and hurl insults at me, only further proves you’re in a weak position. That is on top of demonstrating numerous times that you don’t have a grasp on what you’re talking about and repeating things ad hominem as if they’re arguments people don’t already know. Ciscocat (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You hurl insults at me all the time, to the point of literally cyber-stalking me, and judt admitted you revert my edits intentionally rather than actually going over them. And you're the same person who thinks he can get away with it. CriticallyThinking (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I do go over your edits and I recognize they’re not productive in the slightest.

And I would have gotten away with it, if not for those meddling kids. Ciscocat (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

"And I would have gotten away with it, if not for those meddling kids." (I know you are talking about the admins, and only feel satisfied when you want them in your side)

I am convinced you are a troll or a bot. CriticallyThinking (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a joke.

Here’s a source for what a joke is. Ciscocat (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edits didn't add anything that wasn't already there, it just made things more confusing and muddled. Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what “talking over a potshot” means but I assume it’s a potshot of your own making. If you’re not angry (or “quote unquote ‘angry,’” as you would put it) then how could I be poking fun at you? What am I surrendering for? So many unanswered questions. Ciscocat (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have to applaud you on some level for the amount of energy you’ve expended defending the Tom & Jerry movie in the almost four years since it came out. The UN projects in 2024 that the average life expectancy is 73 years, of which four years represents 5%. Tell me, is it worth it to spend that much time burning bridges over this film that the director probably doesn’t even remember making? Ciscocat (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at Tom & Jerry (2021 American film). 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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

About the "edit warring"

Hello. I am Farhan Khan, who has proudly been a member of Wikipedia and contributed to many resourceful edits of multiple pages on here for years.

There has been a big misunderstanding that I believe isn't fair to block me, let alone even for a month, from editing. Over the past couple of months, for almost a year, a user named "Ciscocat" infamously cyber-stalked me and still has been, very recently on sites like Twitter. Ever since he stalked my Wikipedia account, he constantly vandalized pages I edited, like the Tom & Jerry (2021) page, out of obsession to harass me more than anything else. He also sent many friends of his to do the same, hence why users like Harry also contributed to the edit-warring.

I have done the best I can to prevent this from happening, with every edit I made as referenced by what the articles are proving and reverting the edits back the way they were and/or simplyfying it to make it even more coutresy of the cited sources to support the informatiob. The page was protected from vandalism at one point, with Ciscocat even called out by the admins for edit warring.

I, personally, don't believe it's fair to condone cyber-stalking and harassment, as would outright removing countless useful information from a page. The users mentioned were responsible for the mess of edits and changes, while I was doing the best I can to protect them.

Please help me get over this. It's a misunderstanding, and I personally would like to gain access from editing again, as I wanted to keep the cited information safe.

thank you.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was reverting the edits back safely from trolls constantly vandilizing the pageCriticallyThinking (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)}

Decline reason:

You clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2024 (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.

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The block was not necessary to help prevent disruptive edits and pages being vandalized, which I have been doing ever since to keep edits safe from trolls and contributed to them.CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, but do not discuss that in this request. If you continue to make unproductive requests, you could lose access to this page for the duration of the block. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2024 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CriticallyThinking. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I was logged out of the account and edited more useful information the page needed. How is that impersonation of an account? CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s apparent that you’re still evading your block under another IP address; whether the edits are good or not is irrelevant. This constitutes sock puppetry in the very first paragraph of WP:SOCKPUPPET, and I suggest you cut it out because it’s what extended your block in the first place. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

It's an absolute double standard how you think I am vandalizing pages that prove every point I want to make, but reverting my pages on the Madagascar page that proved it pioneered 2D-inspired stylization in CGI before Hotel Transylvania did is not helping any further. HT did not re-imagine anything, and you even reverted my edit on that page where Tartakovsky treated its style as more of a personal auteur style for him than actually copying 2D animation.

And I have recently found many more sources that proved why my edits on the Tom & Jerry page were true. It actually pioneered a computer-generated alternative of 2D animation completely, which is beyond merely adding stylization to realistically-rendered and animated CG models, and re-imagined many techniques to do so.

I'm not justifying block evasion. But you preventing Wikipedia from being used as a viable source does not benefit either party. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Like Devon said, however good or bad you think your edits are is irrelevant compared to your block-evading behaviour, which is the real concern here. And FYI, the Madagascar edits weren't reverted by Devon, but by Bbb23 who was just doing a routine sock revert. It wasn't a purposeful erasure of Madagascar's contributions to animation history. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Madagascar contributed to added stylization to CGI animation, and Tom & Jerry contributed to a CGI workflow completely achieving the style and execution of a 2D approach to the point where it's indistinguishable from actual 2D animation. And I found even more sources that prove the latter.

Hotel Transylvania re-imagined nothing, and was more specifically just copying what Madagascar did but with an emphasis I further proved that its style was treated as a personal auteur style that Genndy Tartakovsky wanted to incorporate into 3D animation.

As I am still blocked until further notice, without me ever wanting to offend you all, I hope you see all of this as actual contributions I've been adding ever since, instead of harmful edit-warring contributed by trolls who have cyber-stalked me for months outside Wikipedia. CriticallyThinking (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not condoning block evasion or edit warrring. I just want to resolve this and continue to contribute. CriticallyThinking (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You insistence on just focusing on how good or bad your edits are isn't helping your case here, in fact it makes you look like you don't understand how badly you messed up here.

And for the record, having seen clips from the Tom and Jerry film I don't think it's "indistinguishable from actual 2D animation". That's not a knock against the people who worked on the film, they did a fine job with the animation, I just could tell that it was CG made to look like 2D animation by just looking at it. I'm not gonna edit the page to make it look bad as a film, and neither has Devon. I'd say he's done a good job at balancing the article. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The entire goal from the production team was to create a computer-generated alternative of 2D animation (2D-pus, as called by the director), and the crew re-imagined many techniques in order to achieve the exact style and feel of a traditional approach. They wanted to merge every 2D animation aesthetic and craftsmanship with the newly-updated software of CG.

They averted every prior tradition done with CGI, including an iota of its realism, and wanted to create an alternative that completely achieves the style and feel of a traditional approach with the quicker production times of a CGI workflow. Even hand-drawn motion lines were created, courtesy of 2D artists who even helped them achieve the exact sculpting and creative freedom of a 2D approach.

There goes your personal bias showing, which you constantly accuse me of doing. My edits were proof of what the sources showed.

https://www.animationmagazine.net/2021/02/frenemies-in-the-big-city-tom-and-jerry-director-tim-story-team-discuss-the-new-hybrid-pic/

https://www.framestore.com/work/tom-jerry CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The quicker production times of a CGI workflow were the reason why the team went for it. Not because they wanted to translate the characters into CGI or even have CGI elements clashing with it. They wanted every frame to have an exact look and feel derived exclusively from a traditional approach.

It was purely done out of innovation that it looks and feels indistinguishable from how the characters would be actually hand-drawn CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And if you're gonna keep repeating these same few claims over and over, you're not gonna get unblocked any quicker. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, you are the only person, compared to the entire production team, claiming it is merely just CGI with a toon shader slapped into it. Thanks for contributing to the stigma of Wikipedia being seen as an invalid source for research by the academic community.

Fine by me if you're going to block more users that actually cite the truth rather than a personal biased opinion like yours. CriticallyThinking (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edits aren't proof of anything that you're claiming, and your personal bias has always been clear from the start. No one else but you is calling the film innovative. Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Only you is claiming it is merely just CGI with a 2D shader slapped into it. The bias is all on people like you who are responsible for the stigma of Wikipedia being seen as invalid by the academic community.

The production, meanwhile, conceived a computer-generated alternative of 2D animation that achieves the exact style and feel of a 2D approach via the quicker production times of a CGI workflow. I even found many more sources, just a few days ago, that back up more information. Innovation means to come up or even improve upon ideas, and re-imagine things, which the production behind it did.

It was considered different and more traditional than anything a CGI workflow did prior, and also "eye-popping" and "unique" and "complex". Never did a CGI workflow actually try to create something that looks and feels nearly indistinguishable from actual 2D animation.

https://sparkanimation.eventive.org/films/6140009a5d788b003e9ececd

https://screenrant.com/tom-jerry-2d-animation-explained-tim-story/ CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Among them is new draw-over technique where a team of 2D artists guided the animators with rough hand-drawn animation of the characters sketched out during the animatic phase

"Sketchviz", is a new type of previs that further helped the animators achieve the creative freedom of traditional animation, with the ability to sculpt targeted 2D character shapes and many other 2D details that couldn't be achieved under the creative limitations of a computer animation workflow. An automated line generation tool even helped every frame to achieve a 2D look and feel, including hand-drawn motion lines.

Story even emphasized how the technical limitations of CGI prevented the team from achieving the characters’ exact sculpting derived exclusively from a traditional approach, quoting: “We sometimes found that in certain angles, Tom didn’t look like Tom or Jerry didn’t look like Jerry.” All prior to the sketchviz phase and the countless software techniques re-imagined to achieve said execution, which were developed in tandem with said 2D artists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aK0MFQrPKI&ab_channel=StudioRedRobin CriticallyThinking (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

In the end, the real irony of you accusing others of personal bias are completely reflected by your actions by removing every cited information just to appease to your own personal bias. Which is literal vandalism.

Just because it's "impossible" for a CGI workflow to achieve the exact style and feel of a traditional approach and that it's never done before doesn't change the fact that it couldn't be done at all. Every information and word I cited, including more sources I just found recently and cited here, completely proves their intention.

They re-imagined many techniques and conceived a computer-generated alternative that 100% achieves the style and feel of a traditional approach via the quicker production times of a CGI workflow. A complete aversion of every past idea taken with CGI. CriticallyThinking (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You’re not making sense at all; you’re making incoherent arguments and attributing actions to the wrong people. For instance, you argued that Hotel Transylvania did not re-imagine anything. I don’t know what you are talking about but I recall a passage from that article where “reimagined” was used to describe the director overhauling the film’s style as a result of signing on, so you were unable to parse context there. This already doesn’t make you the trustworthiest of editors.

Then you’re admitting to popping up on multiple sock puppet accounts because you believe you are entitled to edit, and regardless of the quality of the edits, that is simply untrue.

Then there’s the actual quality of the edits you’re making, which are quite poor in my opinion. Your repeated insistences that the Tom & Jerry movie “innovated” violate WP:REDFLAG (regarding making exceptional claims). Many sources you included are primary sources, which are close to an event or written by the people involved (i.e. sourcing from the visual effects companies such as Framestore), and potentially constitutes conflict of interest (this is not to mention your belief that phrases such as “eye-popping” and “unique,” when used by those sources, are objective).

WP:REDFLAG also covers “claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions,” i.e. the prospect that Tom & Jerry was widely influential or radically different on a technical level in some way is not a consensus in the same way that, for instance, SpiderVerse was a different-looking film. This is not me debating the technical aspects of either film (read that carefully because I highly suspect you will treat it as such), but pointing out that the two had very different influences and it would be incorrect to suggest that Tom & Jerry had a pivotal influence (outside of Coyote vs Acme, which is produced by the same studio anyway).

(Nor is there a widespread consensus that Madagascar “pioneered” 3D animation that pays homage to 2D; it’s useful to add quotes regarding the artistic process, but it shouldn’t be to prove a predetermined point and it’s safer to not cobble together a conclusion.)

WP:REDFLAG even states that “this is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them,” which correlates to your belief that, as a very evident proponent of the merits of Tom & Jerry 2021, anybody else who alters the article (usually to take care of some of the errors and pitfalls you litter across your edits) is attempting to re-write history.

There is also no need to continually source; WP:ONUS states that verifiability of a source does not automatically guarantee that it requires inclusion. There is no need to continually source or load the article with information, lest it become too verbose.

There is very clearly some form of bias exhibited by your behaviour on this site, and you have already violated a number of rules. Most obvious of all is the open admission of using sock puppet accounts, which does not fly with the site no matter what you think your own arguments are, but you also have a history of making edits that are simply subpar, and seem to be designed to work backward justify a hypothesis of your own, regardless of how much you are sourcing your arguments. InedibleDevon (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Every single souce I cited here just now showed, and backed up the production team's claim, that the Tom & Jerry movie completely distanced itself from the traditions (including realism) of CGI for an approach that completely achieves the style and feel of a traditional 2D approach. It re-imagined many software techniques to help "merge classic 2D animation aesthetics and craftsmanship", done in tandem with 2D artists, into "cutting-edge" VFX software.

It was not the first to stylized CGI, but just as the sources from the team said, it was more traditional and different than anything a CGI workflow was used to doing.

Hotel Transylvania was stated to be a personal project for Genndy Tartakovsky himself, who wanted to translate his style into CGI. It's otherwise just what Madagascar did, where it adds some cartoon stylization into the movements and shapes of the characters.

It's not the same as what Tom & Jerry did. The sources literally said that it was a merge of every traditional animation craftsmanship and aesthetic into CGI software. They wanted to achieve an exact replica of the style and feel that only a 2D workflow can achieve, and for half the time courtesy of a CGI workflow's quicker timing.

It may not be innovative to you, but it's still something completely new. Never prior to this did a CGI project completely achieve a 2D style and overall feel to the point where it's indistinguishable from how the characters would be hand-drawn. This is what the team wanted to achieve. CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

And, like I said, I found even more information and quotes and sources combined that prove more that I haven't added before. Maybe if you actually let me edit and contribute, the difference will be noticeable.

Yes. There IS a difference between making CGI more stylized and making CGI look and feel exactly copied off from 2D animation that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between the two.

The latter is what Tom & Jerry (2021) wanted to achieve. CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not the one who makes the call on whether you’re allowed to edit. What I do know, on a non-administrative level, is that you’ve frequently snapped back whenever someone tries to edit the article before you got blocked, so there’s a bit of hypocrisy there. There’s a reason you were blocked, and you won’t resolve anything if you’re not reflecting on your own actions since then, which will continue to be significantly ill-advised until you do that. InedibleDevon (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You did not engage with any of my points and just repeated what you have been repeating several times over this article. Which tells me you are only in a weak position because you were unable to negate anything I brought up. Just the way in which you are writing shows that you have a lot of personal interest in the topic and have done a lot of potentially original research. InedibleDevon (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not condonning block evasion. But the fact that you are still in denial about the points I have just proved you shows you are ultimately stubborn to the users who actively want to contribute. And outright reverting any edits that prove what the sources say ewually counts as vandalism and edit warring.

You are absolutely no better than I am. The fact that you're acting as such makes you encourage the notion of how Wikipedia isn't a viable source to the academic community. CriticallyThinking (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hypocritical, just like you were whenever I tried to cite in the truth behind the production phase, with quotes literally spelt out in the article itself. A revolutionary change is still something new, whether you agree or not.

CGI animation that looks and feel nearly indistinguishable from actual 2D is something never done prior to this, and likely never again aside from Coyote vs. ACME, before studios revert back to actual teaditional animation. CriticallyThinking (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

“I’m not condoning block evasion” *proceeds to evade a block several times.*

Reverting something that was sourced does not automatically mean vandalism or edit warring, and if someone is evidently evading a block then I believe there is protocol to revert or revise without being wary of the three-revert rule (for edit warring).

I would advise you stop trying to say things like “well, YOU’RE the one with a personal bias” without backing it up, because that’s what people do when they’re losing an argument.

Also, quotes from the filmmakers do not constitute strong enough sources (again, primary sources). Full stop. It’s much better to find assessments of the animation by people that aren’t involved in the making of the film. Throwing around words like “revolutionary” is not an objective breakdown of the subject matter either. That is what hurts Wikipedia more than anything.

At the end of the day, you’ve been blocked several times across numerous IP accounts and very evidently have an extreme fixation on the film, as evidenced by the fact that you can only regurgitate your own interpretation of its production as a rebuttal. It’s Wikipedia. It’s always gonna be changed, whether we like it or not. You don’t own any page, and I’ve already demonstrated how your contributions fall below the website’s standards. So if I were you, I would own up to my misgivings, take a hike, and maybe learn something valuable about another subject. InedibleDevon (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I literally proved to you that Madagascar pioneered stylization in CGI before Hotel Transylvania did, and yet you removed it out of pettiness. Just like how you still refuse to admit that Tom & Jerry did something new and completely achieved the style and feel of 2D animation in a CGI workflow and re-imagined many techniques to do so. These are quotes from not just filmmakers, but also actual veterans from a VFX background.

Even if I hated the film, it doesn't change the fact that I am citing the production's goals. Which is re-imagining many techniques considered vital in a CGI workflow to achieve the style and feel exclusively derived from a 2D approach.

Until you actually grow a pair, learn to read, your accusations of "personal bias" are ironically reflected by your own behavior on not just this page, but also the others. Stop acting like you're any better. CriticallyThinking (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you are still continuing this over a potshot makes you look like a stubborn child who refuses to learn from history and continues to throw a fit because I'm citing information and intents directly sourced from veterans who have long been a part of a CGI background themselves.

If I did get to edit, I will not add words like "innovative" or "revolutionary". But I just found more words and quotes that still prove the points I was trying to make, as referenced by the creative team themselves.

It's not a personal bias. It's just a fact. A fact that you still can't get over, and it's petty. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Only someone with a personal bias like you would claim it's merely just a toon shader slapped into CGI animation, which you re-worded this way out of clear personal bias. Even though the production showed much more than that, which you again removed from sheer vadalism alone. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never said anything about toon shading. If you’re going to follow up twice, at least say something different and do not put words in my mouth, because that is another sign of losing an argument.

And no, you don’t find quotes and words to prove a point you are trying to make on Wikipedia, a site that is supposed to be neutral. This is essentially admitting that you are trying to skew the page into an essay of your own. That is a straight-up admission that you are heading into this with an agenda. That’s not how this works. Give it up. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, thank you for telling me to grow a pair and that I need to learn how to read. You want to be unblocked and you think that’s gonna get you there? Incredibly childish and shameful.

The VFX people count as filmmakers on the project. Your arguments about Madagascar and Hotel Transylvania are insubstantial; it’s one thing to include info on its production process but it’s another to say it pioneered. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the one who removed vital information from the Madagascar, Hotel Transylvania, and T&J pages that proved actual facts... somrthing truly childish. The more you keep continuing this argument, the more you prove yourself responsible as to why the academic community only rarely trusts Wikipedia as a valid source for research. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You act like you know more than each people who worked on the film. Even VFX veterans themselves.

HT never tried to copy the style and feel of 2D, but merely just stylized otherwise traditional CGI models. Madagascar did it first, when the director felt like stylization was never done prior in CGI.

T&J took a completely different direction and further distanced itself from any idea taken with CGI for a complete copy of 2D. These are all intentions cited by the teams of each project.

That is not personal bias, my friend. It's just a fact. A fact you need to get over already. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want another conflict regarding block evasion or edit warring to happen. So please and kindly give up, and let me cite even more quotes and sources I found that will be kept in a neutral point of view. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You don’t get to say “please and kindly” after telling me to “grow a pair,” and I’m not the one who gives you permission to edit again, but even if I was, your insults and begging wouldn’t make a case for me to do so. Once the page becomes unprotected from anonymous IP accounts, if you make edits, I or other users will report you, because that will be another instance of block evasion, and you seem to not care about that at all. Nor does it fall under edit warring if I reverse those edits. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Right after you begin insulting me out of personal bias, you just commented that you don't even care about citing sources about film production. That alone should convince you to stop at the expense of users who have long tried to contribute and actually care. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

When have I ever said I don’t research production? I still went over the articles for Tom & Jerry and made sure I was correctly attributing what I said. In fact, there were a few quotes that were not embedded properly and singular conclusions surmised from multiple articles that were not exactly true.

And again, you don’t get to insult me and then say I’m insulting you when I point out a decision you made. In fact, many of your accusations are only confessions, because you just lob whatever we say back at us.

Listen, who is blocked from editing right now between the two of us? Who turned their own block into an indefinite one by trying and failing to use IP accounts to do their own bidding? You can denigrate me all you want, but there’s a difference between trying to tweak the article and adding relevant information that is of interest, and believing you own the page and flooding it with sources to prove your own personal conclusion.

I’ve already detailed how your conduct violates Wikipedia’s guidelines several times, but given how you cannot seem to articulate how you did that, it’s pointless to argue with you. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You literally began insulting me about how I keep talking about its production and outright deny the production team's intentions. They re-imagined multiple techniques and aimed for a computer-generated alternative of 2D animation that completely achieves the style and feel of a traditional approach. The fact that you're even privileged to run this site is why Wikipedia isn't trusted as a viable source, at the expense of people like me who actually care. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe if you cut out the insults and and actually listen to someone who doesn't even want another conflict from happening, you'd listen how I have even more vital information and quotes to add that weren't even added before. I found even more sources recently. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Im glad you found more sources. Am I supposed to add them for you? InedibleDevon (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t run the site!!! How is me pointing out that you keep repeating yourself (as you just did again) an insult? When I edited the page recently, I didn’t get rid of anything that was essential. I just tried to word it better, according to Wikipedia’s own recommendations, in a way that you clearly don’t like. When you write extremely hyperbolic and vague things like “it introduced many pivotal softwares and techniques,” of course I’m going to clean that up because it’s such an open-ended and ambiguous statement. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to add "reimagined many techniques considered vital", among other quotes, if you actually let me. But instead of burying the hatchet like you should be, you still keep on dragging this argument out of nowhere. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s not a source whatsoever, that’s a choice of wording you want to add that goes against WP:NPOV. It’s a quote from you. And again, I don’t decide to let you edit, but I wouldn’t after you just admitted that you want to bend the site to your own will to make the film look better. Something you have a history of doing by saying the film had mixed reviews when it didn’t, or that it was reappraised on Netflix by fans based off a Screen Rant article (you know they’re just a content farm and not a viable source?) InedibleDevon (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can go on and on with more quotes I found, such as:

Eames introduced a new draw-over technique where a team of 2D artists guided the animators with rough hand-drawn animation of the characters sketched out during the animatic phase. The technique, called "sketchviz", is a new type of previs that further helped the animators achieve the creative freedom of traditional animation, with the ability to sculpt targeted 2D character shapes and many other 2D details that couldn't be achieved under the creative limitations of a computer animation workflow. Prior to the “sketchviz” phase, Story emphasized how the technical limitations of CGI prevented the team from achieving the characters’ exact sculpting derived exclusively from a traditional approach, quoting: “We sometimes found that in certain angles, Tom didn’t look like Tom or Jerry didn’t look like Jerry.” This concept became a reference for the animators to recreate many pivotal tools with every technique directly sourced from traditional animation, courtesy of assistant 2D artists, including “an automated line generation tool” that generated the characters’ vintage hand-drawn outlines and motion lines, while new rigs for squash and stretch were developed to be equally as “totally deform[ative]” as copied from a traditional approach's execution.

“It was important to have the animated characters be in 2D because the classic cartoons were in 2D,” explained Story. “We thought it was the best way to give homage to what the cartoons have always been.”

The production accounted for a total of 1165 digital visual effects shots, including 600 VFX artists working on the film.

These are just examples of more sources I found that are vital. And one of them quotes that it's "much more traditional than many VFX animators are used to" by the animation director. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Screen Rant has many viable sources to choose from, such as critical receptions and even interviews with filmmakers. Proving a film's production history doesn't equate to making a film look like it was positively received. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of these are quotes, most of this is just (often poorly written) prose for the article that you want to insert in. Again, not a source. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Imagine literally saying quotes from the filmmakers about the animation (one of them about the visual effects) to be an invalid source to add. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The quotes are fine. It’s your incorporations like, “a reference for the animators to recreate many pivotal tools…” do you even think about what you’re writing? You’re just mixing and matching the same old phrases you always use. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

In the video's description, which showed how the sketchviz phase worked, it said it became a reference for the animators to animate on top and further recreate many software tools to actually capture the look and feel of traditional animation into the overall finish.

But look. It was you with the mindset of "It's just a Wikipedia page." You admitted you don't care about how invalid or valid the site's pages is, which is insulting to people like me who actually put in the effort to make the site useful. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, you said earlier if you’d edit the page again you wouldn’t include phrases like “innovated” or “revolutionary,” yet you want to add “reimagined.” But the fact that you seem to know not to include terms like that tells me what you want to do. Get over it, bro. It’s just a Wikipedia page. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Quote from the source: We developed new rigs to deform the characters"

"New rigs" = An evolution of the squash-and-stretch technique used in CGI for quite some time now to match a 2D approach.

If you treat a Wikipedia page like it's nothing, that's insulting to people like me who care to contribute to the site. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Rigs are not an evolution of squash and stretch, they’re referring to the points of articulation on a 3D character. The fact that you wrote something incorrect like it was something I didn’t know is hilarious. It’s also proof that you should not be contributing, because it’s clearer than ever you do not know what you are talking about. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You misread my comment. Rigs for squash and stretch have LONG existed. The production said they developed new rigs to outright deform them exactly how a traditional approach would do. Further quote, the team wanted to "provide a 2D drawn feel to every character frame".

And the techniques were developed in tandem with assistant 2D artists in the production. Kindly give up before you lose focus on what I'm talking about. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

But look. It was you with the mindset of "It's just a Wikipedia page." You admitted you don't care about how invalid or valid the site's pages is, which is insulting to people like me who actually put in the effort to make the site useful. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I only said “it’s just a Wikipedia page” because you’re so desperate to edit the page that you broke the rules by evading your block, tried to bribe me to add stuff, made vulgar remarks at me, and made comments about how I need to learn to read when your replies are borderline incoherent. Again, do you really want this behaviour to your real name? There’s a reason you got blocked, so I don’t know what you’re trying to prove.

If you care about this movie so much, feel free to write your own essays and posts on some other site. The rest of us are actually trying to maintain the quality of the page. InedibleDevon (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

"The rest of us are actually trying to maintain the quality of the page" and yet outright remove necessary information that further removes what the team was actually aiming for. You further insulting me for contributing does not make you any better, even when I outright try to resolve this. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You know what, what’s done is done. You’re blocked for good reason, and if you try to make any more unsanctioned edits, it will be taken care of, so I would rather expend my energy elsewhere, and so should you. Stop arguing over trying to edit the page and focus your time on doing something more productive that isn’t obsessing over a single children’s film from four years ago. It’s genuinely pitiful at this point, and again, not a great trail to have left behind in your own name. InedibleDevon (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you're even trying to weaken it as a "children's film" makes you a reprehensible human being who outright insults animation as a creative medium and the fact that family films can't have a slight amount of creativity put into it. You should give up, if you have nothing more to add, at this point. This is not even the only page, by the way. As someone who proudly contributed to this site for years, people like you undermine its potential to become more resourceful. I can see why Wikipedia is rarely allowed as a source to cite from. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, classic cartoons have appealed to adults. Friz Freleng historically proved the case. If I added that, I assume you will also remove a factual source out of sheer pettiness too. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I enjoy the medium of animation too and believe it’s for all ages. On a purely subjective level, I don’t find anything about the Tom & Jerry film remotely creative, not next to some of my favourite arthouse animation like Mind Game, Son of the White Mare, Fantastic Planet, etc. I like the animated segments, but to me it’s just another live-action animated hybrid for the Walmart bin that panders to children and gives the medium a bad rep.

I would like to stress that it doesn’t mean I edit the page to make the film look bad, because that would violate the neutral point of view. To the contrary, if anything about the production process can be added then that’s great. But I would never act incredibly spoiled about not being able to edit the page or harass random people for not liking it, because I’m not a hypocrite. To that end, I have seen your conduct across various sites, and I’m sorry but it’s incredibly low behaviour, and more “reprehensible” in the grand scheme of things. InedibleDevon (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling someone "a reprehensible human being" because you misunderstood what they meant isn't a good look, and frankly makes you even less likely to be unblocked if you keep making such rude remarks. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I just realized from his wording that he didn’t necessarily call me that because I belittled animation. He called me that because I said it was a children’s film, which it is. He needs to get a grip. InedibleDevon (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It’s extremely apparent they are referring to points of articulation on 3D characters. Rigging exists in 2D, but not the hand-drawn animation you’re referring to. You are pulling quotes out of thin air. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That was exactly my point, that they wanted to finalize a 2D drawn look and feel to every frame of the models that were otherwise done in CGI from scratch. Hand-drawn motion lines were even created by the line generation tool, which once again, proves and cites what they were going for. CriticallyThinking (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

They can’t be hand-drawn and generated at the same time. Even so, Rocky and Bullwinkle did almost the exact same thing with the outline and rendering; numerous other films have done the draw-overs to accentuate the strengths of 2D, films such as SpiderVerse have done the motion lines and other effects. Tom & Jerry is very clearly just a byproduct of what came before. InedibleDevon (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Rocky and Bullwinkle used pre-existing cel-shading techniques but made the characters move and rigged like any other CGI model. "Tom & Jerry" completely tries to jide the fact that it's CGI to masquerade (and convincingly) as traditional animation. The details and software to achieve that were developed in tandem with 2D artists who guided the animators. Like I said, you haven't read the sources and merely want to prove a point based on yoyr own bias. CriticallyThinking (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

He has, in fact, read the sources. You're just upset that he isn't showering the film with the same hyperbolic praise and dubious claims of innovation that you are. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know why replacing traditional animation with computer animation is something to be applauded, but regardless, I’m not doing anything to undermine information about the production. What I am doing is avoiding open-ended phrases like “the film introduced many software techniques,” and restricting it to the techniques described in that Animation Magazine article.

I retained all of the information about the 2D artists’ drawings guiding the animators when posing the 3D models; however, I didn’t say it was “claimed to be a world’s first adoption in animation,” a bizarre unfounded quote made by yourself several times while editing. I know it’s not the first, because I did research and uncovered instances where the draw-over in 3D had been done before, such as in Hotel Transylvania, Tangled, etc.

I’m not talking about the finished looks of these films (I’m aware that Tom & Jerry and Hotel are going for something different), I’m saying that the processes as described closely matched one another. It doesn’t mean I have to mention one film in the other’s article or even go out of my way to find the first film that did this, but it does mean it would be dishonest to make a statement that it was especially different.

I’m aware that the process might have had different methods than other comparable films, but it’s not enough to call it innovative. The reason a film like Into the SpiderVerse gets away with being declared something like “innovative” is because numerous people who were not close to the production deemed it so: film critics and historians from major trades, as well as filmmakers behind numerous animated films in the following years who directly cited the film as an inspiration, meaning that on some level there is concrete evidence of its impact. A film like 1993’s Super Mario Bros. can be called “innovative” because the concept of scanning film prints digitally to do VFX work was picked up by subsequent films. That doesn’t make it the best example (I like that film and its effects personally), or even a direct influence on other films; it was just an early adopter of that process.

Nobody cites Tom & Jerry as innovative because it isn’t. That’s not to say it’s bad, but it’s comprised of so many other pieces that it wouldn’t be justified to re-write history and say that it was innovative. The draw-over element is not new to 3D. The principles of animation such as squash-and-stretch aren’t new to 3D either; pushing and breaking rigs on 3D models isn’t new; the concept of generating outlines aren’t new (see Rocky and Bullwinkle); the idea that it’s indistinguishable from 2D is a subjective one (that I don’t personally agree with either); motion lines were done before in SpiderVerse and other films, etc. Nobody has cited it as an influence on their work other than the Coyote vs Acme film, which hasn’t released yet (and even so, everything I just said could be applied there too).

The individual examples might not have the same result (i.e. I recognize that R&B’s animation isn’t as exaggerated as T&J’s), but my point is that nobody is saying Tom & Jerry is innovative because if you actually look, you can see examples where elements of it were done before. If anything, T&J is a byproduct of these other films, rather than a game-changer. I’m trying to keep this as objective as I can, but Tom & Jerry isn’t notably or distinctly innovative from the perspective of narrative, storytelling language via camerawork or editing, etc. If anything, sources close to the film (and even you yourself) state that it is heavily influenced by the original source material. Therefore, it’s hard to say rest of the film is actually innovative if so much of it was lifted from what came before.

You may take all this as a personal attack, and it’s not meant to be. That’s more of a testament to how overly protective you are of the film, which has blurred the line between fact and opinion for you on this site and obscured your ability to contribute neutrally. While I’m hardly the utmost expert on the subject, in my opinion you demonstrate a very inconsistent understanding of how animation actually works. I can just tell by the awkward vernacular, you seem to be mixing and matching different words when describing this film in an effort to wring more out of it than there actually is. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And at the end of the day, you evaded your block to tell OTHER people that they were violating the site’s rules, believed you were entitled just because you thought your edits were worthier than anyone else’s, and addressed me with insulting remarks. I think that’s a good microcosm of your inability to collaborate, compromise or take responsibility for what you might have done wrong. Only you lose by doing that, not the rest of us, so I suggest you ditch the condescending and belittling attitude you’ve taken with other users and reflect on your own behaviour. If you had done that earlier, maybe you wouldn’t have extended your block indefinitely. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you tried to appeal your block by introducing yourself with your full real name only tells me that you’re in over your head and you don’t understand how any of this works. You need to blur the line between your online persona and your real life, especially when your conduct is as embarrassing as this. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. But at least a wall can actually break when you can forcefully demand it to. CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You keep telling on yourself like this, it's honestly hilarious. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The production behind the Tom & Jerry movie conceived a computer-generated alternative of 2D animation that it completely masks the fact that it's even CGI. Keep on convincing yourself otherwise, because the only time this will ever be done again is in Coyote vs. ACME.

The "2D+" animation was conceived as a 2D animation alternative that can achieve its execution for less time, given a CG workflow's quicker timing.

And yes, I've told you a thousand times, there is a difference between merely stylizing CGI models and actually incorporating 2D aesthetics (visual AND motion techniques) into CGI models. CriticallyThinking (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

See the bottom of the page. Are you gonna try and appeal your block or not? InedibleDevon (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments are again incoherent, and your edits were not only unnecessary but were done as a result of block evasion. You don’t actually understand or want to take responsibility for what you did because you’re too busy trying to go to bat for your own interpretation of these films. You just seem upset that you aren’t allowed to edit, but you violated numerous guidelines that I have mentioned above. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The more you keep on talking about block evasion, which I am literally avoid another event of, shows that I am politely demanding access to contribute again. The more you keep rambling, the more this argument just keeps going nowhere. CriticallyThinking (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

“Which I am literally avoid another event of.” So I have to learn how to read?

Why are you politely demanding access from me? Instead of articulating what you could have done wrong, you’re rambling about the production of Tom & Jerry over and over with the same song and dance. It’s getting desperate and I suggest you let it go. InedibleDevon (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You literally just admitted that you don't care about researching production. Then why bother even citing sources at all? CriticallyThinking (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

He does, in fact, care about researching the production, the difference is that he understands to not include his own biases towards the film when he does this. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• CriticallyThinking, you retain access to this talk page to allow you to make a WP:GAB-compliant appeal, if you choose to do so, not to continue the same arguments that you were making prior to the block. Please stop or you will lose access to this page. @InedibleDevon and Harryhenry1: please disengage.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Understood. InedibleDevon (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Accused of sockpuppetry

I want to go over this misunderstanding. I've been protecting the pages from trolls and vandals that infamously cyber-stalked me for months, and have been contributed to many useful edits over the years I've been on this platform. I thought people were also allowed to edit without signing in? The terms of sockpuppetry is making harmful edits, and those were not considered harmful by the admins.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was logged out of my account and added a useful edit the page needed that isn't even vandalism nor were they considered harmful edits by the admins.

Decline reason:

You are engaged in block evasion. If you believe you've done nothing wrong, then that is a compelling not to unblock you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2024 (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.

CriticallyThinking (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

Noting  Confirmed block evasion in the past week. This counts as a strike toward WP:3X, leading to an eventual community ban. --Yamla (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)