User talk:Matías2028

highest-grossing movies in the world excluding re-releases==

Welcome

Hello, Matías2028, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Matías2028, good luck, and have fun. — Newslinger talk 14:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Frozen (2013 film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Crboyer (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I wasn't vandalising any page i was only adding things that were true to pages Matías2028 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding cruft to box-office sections

Please stop adding "century" records to box-office sections as you did here. No box-office tracker that I know of tracks such records so they do not satisfy WP:DUE. The year and all-time records are sufficient to give an indicator of the film's success. Betty Logan (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked you once to stop doing this, but since you have not responded here I do not know if you have read this message. It is not necessary to list a bunch of other films as you did here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that readers can click on the appropriate links if they want more information, and if they want to see which films finished ahead of The Dark Knight they can look up the appropriate chart. Adding these extra films does not enhance a reader's understanding of the film's success. And once again, please do not add "century" and "millenium" records. These are meaningless at this stage and there are good reasons why trackers such as Box Office Mojo and Variety do not compile such records. Wikipedia is not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information so please stop adding it! Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box office

I didn't want to vandalise box office, i did it because i wanted people to know that records Matías2028 (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I have asked you above to stop adding cruft to articles. Addling a list of films to an article as you did here has no encyclopedia article. If readers want to know how these films rank against each they are quite capable of looking the figures at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

Also, please stop adding "threequel" records to articles. They are trivia, not least because by definition every fourth film in a series is also a threequel too. If these records were worth cataloguing then box-office trackers would have lists of them, except they don't. These records are simply something you have cobbled together through WP:SYNTHESIS.

While I generally welcome enthusiasm from new editors (even when they make mistakes) I am becoming weary of your edits. Apart from general updates (which are helpful) none of the new content you have added is actually useful. You are creating a lot of clean-up work for other editors by adding cruft and trivia to articles. Here is a tip: if box-office trackers (such as Box Office Mojo or Variety) do not explicitly track a record then do not invent it! Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again more listcruft at Avengers: Infinity War. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Box-office_record_edits to discuss your edits, should you wish to participate. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Grimm (season 1), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Qzd (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to A Town Called Mercy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research on the first season of Grimm

What i edited wasn't original research what i edited is my opinion about an episode Matías2028 (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Lion King, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 14:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Sixth Sense. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Furious 7. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Cold Blood (Doctor Who), you may be blocked from editing. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Caretaker (Doctor Who). Ted Edwards 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was just writing what the characters shouldn't have done in movies and series

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but as an encyclopedia, such subjective commentary is not appropriate and constitutes original research. It is personal opinion. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Please affirm your understanding of these requirements and describe the sort of constructive edits you would make. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i wasn't vandalizing Wikipedia i was just adding things i think there were necessary to edit

Decline reason:

See the response above. As you still feel your edits were appropriate, this block is necessary to prevent disruption. Kuru (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think trying to accept your own unblock request proves you need to stay blocked.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of highest-grossing films 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Dark Knight (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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Justin Bieber. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 22:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at The Lord of the Rings (film series). - FlightTime (open channel) 21:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronhjones and Dlohcierekim: Continued addition of unsourced OR has been blocked for same before, still not getting it see edit summary. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i did nothing bad this time. I added things i discovered mentally. I also think the reason why you blocked me was selfish

Decline reason:

Wikipedia requires reliable sources (see WP:RS) and does not accept material that you "discovered mentally" or that you "know by heart". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you review (which you should have already done) No original research, then look at your edit summaries, how can you say your block is in error ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I have now reviewed your previous blocks, and you keep being blocked for adding your own personal research, analysis, opinion, or other unsourced content to articles. You get a fixed-term block, and as soon as it expires you go right back to exactly the same unacceptable editing. The block above is your third for the same behaviour, and you have immediately responded by demonstrating that you still either have no understanding whatsoever of what you have been doing wrong or that you refuse to follow Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy. Either way, a further fixed-term block seems pointless when the evidence suggests you will simply carry on what you are doing wrong when it expires. As such, I have extended your block to indefinite. That does not mean you will never be unblocked, it just means that you will only be unblocked if you can convince a reviewing admin that you understand why you are blocked and make a convincing commitment to change your editing behaviour and follow Wikipedia policy. (@Ronhjones: I hope you don't mind my doing this). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the indefinite block. The problem here is that the editor has demonstrated no willingness to adapt despite the escalating level of sanctions. If he is to be allowed to edit again he needs to demonstrate an understanding of why he's been sanctioned and a willingness to learn from his mistakes. To this end the indefinite block and the WP:STANDARDOFFER is the correct route to the reinstatement of his editing privileges. Betty Logan (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i think i was blocked for a long time

Decline reason:

You are blocked indefinitely. That can be a long time or a short time; all you have to do is compose an unblock request that shows you will no longer be a problematic editor. This unblock request, however, is not that, and so I am declining it. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i promise i won't make more disruptive edits

Decline reason:

That's a start, but you will need to explain what you do intend to do if unblocked and that you understand the reasons for the block, in order to assure an administrator that you are likely to follow through on your promise. Since this request does not do that, I am declining it. Please read WP:GAB to learn how to craft an unblock request more likely to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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).

Matías2028 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i won't write my opinions about movies anymore and I'll correct things like spelling mistakes

Decline reason:

At this point, I can't tell if you are unable to follow simple instructions (in which case WP:CIR would apply) or if you are outright trolling. Either way, there are no grounds here to lift the block and you are likely going to lose access to this talk page unless your next unblock request is significantly better. Yamla (talk) 10:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk page access revoked

As you have refused to follow the instructions above and as you have violated WP:COPYRIGHT by copying content from elsewhere on Wikipedia without attribution, I have revoked talk page access. This leaves you with WP:UTRS if you wish to contest the block, but I'll point out you've been massively disruptive and so would need a significantly more convincing unblock request to have any hope at UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]