W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Inanimanitatist

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!


<div style="border:1px solid lightgrey;">
<div style="margin: 2px; font-family: sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Hello, Inanimanitatist! '''Welcome to Wikipedia!''' Thank you for your contributions ↗. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place '''<code>{&#123;helpme&#125;}</code>''' on your talk page ↗ and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name ↗ on talk pages by clicking 22px|link=Wikipedia:How to sign your posts|alt= ↗ or by typing four tildes "~&#126;~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted ↗" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject ↗ to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here ↗ for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary ↗ field when making edits to pages.</div>

{| style="width:100%; font-size:85%; color:#000;" role="presentation"
| style="width: 55%; border:1px solid white; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top"|
<div style="margin: 0.2em; background-color:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Getting Started</div>


<div style="margin: 0.2em; background:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Getting Help</div>


<div style="margin: 0.2em; background:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Policies and Guidelines</div>

----

| style="width: 45%; border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:Seashell; vertical-align:top"|
<div style="margin: 0.2em; background-color:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">The Community</div>


<div style="margin: 0.2em; background-color:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Things to do</div>


<div style="margin: 0.2em; background-color:white; font: bold 120% sans-serif; border:1px solid lightgrey; color:grey; padding: 0.2em 0 0.2em 0.4em;">Miscellaneous</div>


|}
</div>
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)<!--Template:WelcomeMenu-->

February 2026



30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ 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 :Ice Age: Collision Course ↗. <!-- Template:uw-nor4 --> Mr Fink (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

:Excuse me, Apokryltaros, but if you're receiving this reply, I'd like to sincerely and deeply apologize for the edits I made to the official Wikipedia page "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016 and for (if I still did without any harmful intentions) violating the "no original research" policy and inserting unpublished information (and my personal analysis, if it seemed like you for this) into the article. I'd also like to take this moment to come clean about my actions and explain myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing this. But before that, I decided not to include any more original research or unpublished sources for the official "Ice Age: Collision Course" article anymore, after going through research and re-evaluation and agreeing that the 2016 is actually and primarily (not "technically") classified as an animated science-fiction comedy film, not a science-fiction adventure comedy film (since the absurdist and geographically/scientifically inconsistent "science fiction" elements and excessive visual gags or over-the-top slapstick led the film to being driven away from the primary "adventure comedy" genre that defined the original "Ice Age" trilogy of animated films (including the commercially successful but critically condemned "Continental Drift" in 2012).
:In other words, I've decided to permanently leave the official page for "Ice Age: Collision Course" alone and never tamper with its genre classification or anything more, but I still need to explain myself and reason out (without needing to write a full essay ir anything) on why I'm planning to re-classify the main genres of "Rio" in 2011 and "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015.
:For "Rio" in 2011, I actually made those edits never intended to be subjective ones nor from my personal opinions but to bring back the original classification of the animated film's primary genres on Wikipedia from 2011 up until the early 2020s and before it was classified now as a "musical comedy film": an animated "musical romantic adventure comedy film." While it is very true and accurate to describe the animated film's genre (until today) for having musical numbers influenced by samba and contemporary music and visual gags, humor, and/or slapstick provided by the cast of characters, it is also primarily classified as an adventure film (as the main characters, macaws Blu and Jewel, go on a high-stakes adventure throughout Brazil to escape smugglers and a menacing cockatoo) and a romance/romantic comedy film (as the forced "mating" between Blu and Jewel ends up evolving into a romantic relationship as the film progresses). Whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal), I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "musical comedy").
:For "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015, this one was very tough for me (including classification, evaluation, and original research/sources for the primary genre of the animated film, but not on subjectivemess nor personal opinions). Yes, while it is very true that this one can be primarily classified as a simple animated "comedy film," it is very unique and different among other American animated films that are simply and primarily classified as "comedy films" because although those like "Despicable Me" in 2010, "Wreck-It Ralph" in 2012, or "Monsters, Inc." in 2001 have elements of high-stakes action and adventure or feature anti-hero/villain/monster characters and goals of redemption or "good" change within main characters, "The Peanuts Movie" goes something different (although featuring slapstick and visual or high-energy comedy). Unlike simple animated "comedy films" that feature traditional "hero's journey structures" or formulaic but effective high-stakes action and adventure-like missions for the main character/s, "The Peanuts Movie" instead focuses as a slice-of-life comedy, as Charlie Brown's subplot involves him trying to impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl" in his class and the everyday struggles and year-long school events (driven through character-driven situations and humor and relatable childhood experiences) that he goes through as he tries to increase his popularity and earn acceptance from his peers as a friend, other than from Snoopy and Linus (saving his sister from embarrassment at the talent show, having trouble flying a kite, being honest with his test score at the assembly, and writing a book report on Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for an assignment, among others). However, slice-of-life comedy as the genre of the film is what not drives it as the primary genre: so does "adventure comedy," particularly as Snoopy (in his own subplot) uses Charlie Brown's struggles, situations, and/or events as the inspirations for writing his "fiction-within-fiction" novel featuring himself as a "World War I Flying Ace" engaging in a high-stakes adventure to defeat his fantastical nemesis, the "Red Baron," and save his love interest "Fifi," with the help of Woodstock and his Beagle Scout's repair crew. Another main reason I intended, with no vandalism actions or whatsoever, on evaluating and re-classifying "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 as an animated slice-of-life adventure comedy film because it is one of the only Blue Sky Studios films (and animated films, in general) to have both or all of its subplots well-executed. Unlike "Ice Age: Continental Drift" in 2012, "Rio 2" in 2014, or "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016, which all had subplots that were "poorly executed" or described as "thin" and "underdeveloped" and led to their condemnations from critics and audiences and "inferiorities" to their better-received predecessors, "The Peanuts Movie" uses Snoopy's imaginary aerial battles with the Red Baron and his mission of saving Fifi as a "mirroring" (rather than a distraction for criticism in the film's quality) for Charlie Brown's struggles in his relatable but emotional and quiet quest to earn acceptance from his peers as a "true friend" and impress the Little Red-Haired Girl, even if he perceives himself as a "failure". I apologize for explaining this much, but I just hope that you understand my reasons (objective, not subjective) of re-classifying and evaluating the primary genres of "The Peanuts Movie" (as it is more than a simple animated "comedy film"). And whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal) or allow me to continue my search of providing sources that do support my point and are authentically "original research", I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "comedy").
:I kindly ask of you to not block me from editing, but I also, again, apologize if these edits were violating Wikipedia's polices on Blue Sky Studios films, and for not considering how you felt about this, Apokryltaros. I will leave editing "Ice Age: Collision Course" and never tamper with it ever again, but I hope that you still understand the reasons of editing on the primary genres of "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and I will be waiting for your permission and consent first of allowing me to make the edits and provide original research (if I'm supposed to as supportive evidence). Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist
::Do not restore your copy and pasted wall of text replies onto my talkpage again, please. Restoring what other editors delete off of their talkpages without their permission is seen as harassment. Mr Fink (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I sincerely and deeply apologize for that, Apokryltaros. I won't do it again nor message you on this without your permission and I'm very sorry if I harassed you in any way.
:::However, I'll be waiting for other editors' replies to the explanations and reasons behind my actions and I'll be doing so (or begin the editing and original research, if given full permission) before or on March 4 or March 10. Inanimanitatist (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist
::Please read WP:NOR ↗. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. It does not matter if you justify your edits with a wall of text analyzing the films and reaching conclusions based on your own perceptions. Any change (such as editing a film's genre) need to be backed up with a source, and if users revert your changes, open a discussion in the articles' Talk page, not the edit summary. Multiple reverts will be deemed disruptive behavior and will warrant a report to admins.
::Your "explanations" are not needed, just follow the steps. Wikipedia is not a place for your own essays and analysis. Joy040207 (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Genres



Please stop with your persistent edits on films like Rio (2011 film) ↗, Ice Age Collision Course ↗ or The Peanuts Movie ↗. Your edits have been reverted multiple times now, and a "please do not revert my edits" warning in your edit summaries will not work. This behavior is disruptive. If new to Wikipedia, please be mindful that, first of all, you do not need to leave a whole essay explaining your blatant original research and personal opinions. Even if you back it up with a source (unreliable, by the way. Other Wikis are NOT reliable, please see WP:RSPS ↗), if your "harmless" change has been reverted more than once, open a discussion in the articles Talk page, and explain your reasoning and get a consensus before making the change again, otherwise you will start violating WP's policies regarding disruptive behavior. Your edits are "harmless", but your attitude is starting to not be that. Joy040207 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

:Excuse me, Joy020407, but if you're receiving this reply, I'd like to sincerely and deeply apologize for the edits I made to the official Wikipedia page "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016 and for (if I still did without any harmful intentions) violating the "no original research" policy, my persistent edits, "harmful" attitude towards you, disruptive behavior and warnings,and inserting unpublished information (and my personal opinions and blatant original research, if it seemed like you for this) into the article. I'd also like to take this moment to come clean about my actions and explain myself about what I'm doing and why I'm doing this. But before that, I decided not to include any more original research or unpublished sources for the official "Ice Age: Collision Course" article anymore, after going through research and re-evaluation and agreeing that the 2016 is actually and primarily (not "technically") classified as an animated science-fiction comedy film, not a science-fiction adventure comedy film (since the absurdist and geographically/scientifically inconsistent "science fiction" elements and excessive visual gags or over-the-top slapstick led the film to being driven away from the primary "adventure comedy" genre that defined the original "Ice Age" trilogy of animated films (including the commercially successful but critically condemned "Continental Drift" in 2012).
:In other words, I've decided to permanently leave the official page for "Ice Age: Collision Course" alone and never tamper with its genre classification or anything more, but I still need to explain myself and reason out (without needing to write a full essay ir anything) on why I'm planning to re-classify the main genres of "Rio" in 2011 and "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015.
:For "Rio" in 2011, I actually made those edits never intended to be subjective ones nor from my personal opinions but to bring back the original classification of the animated film's primary genres on Wikipedia from 2011 up until the early 2020s and before it was classified now as a "musical comedy film": an animated "musical romantic adventure comedy film." While it is very true and accurate to describe the animated film's genre (until today) for having musical numbers influenced by samba and contemporary music and visual gags, humor, and/or slapstick provided by the cast of characters, it is also primarily classified as an adventure film (as the main characters, macaws Blu and Jewel, go on a high-stakes adventure throughout Brazil to escape smugglers and a menacing cockatoo) and a romance/romantic comedy film (as the forced "mating" between Blu and Jewel ends up evolving into a romantic relationship as the film progresses). Whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal), I'll wait for your permission. What I hope for is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "musical comedy").
:For "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015, this one was very tough for me (including classification, evaluation, and original research/sources for the primary genre of the animated film, but not on subjectivemess nor personal opinions). Yes, while it is very true that this one can be primarily classified as a simple animated "comedy film," it is very unique and different among other American animated films that are simply and primarily classified as "comedy films" because although those like "Despicable Me" in 2010, "Wreck-It Ralph" in 2012, or "Monsters, Inc." in 2001 have elements of high-stakes action and adventure or feature anti-hero/villain/monster characters and goals of redemption or "good" change within main characters, "The Peanuts Movie" goes something different (although featuring slapstick and visual or high-energy comedy). Unlike simple animated "comedy films" that feature traditional "hero's journey structures" or formulaic but effective high-stakes action and adventure-like missions for the main character/s, "The Peanuts Movie" instead focuses as a slice-of-life comedy, as Charlie Brown's subplot involves him trying to impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl" in his class and the everyday struggles and year-long school events (driven through character-driven situations and humor and relatable childhood experiences) that he goes through as he tries to increase his popularity and earn acceptance from his peers as a friend, other than from Snoopy and Linus (saving his sister from embarrassment at the talent show, having trouble flying a kite, being honest with his test score at the assembly, and writing a book report on Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" for an assignment, among others). However, slice-of-life comedy as the genre of the film is what not drives it as the primary genre: so does "adventure comedy," particularly as Snoopy (in his own subplot) uses Charlie Brown's struggles, situations, and/or events as the inspirations for writing his "fiction-within-fiction" novel featuring himself as a "World War I Flying Ace" engaging in a high-stakes adventure to defeat his fantastical nemesis, the "Red Baron," and save his love interest "Fifi," with the help of Woodstock and his Beagle Scout's repair crew. Another main reason I intended, with no vandalism actions or whatsoever, on evaluating and re-classifying "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 as an animated slice-of-life adventure comedy film because it is one of the only Blue Sky Studios films (and animated films, in general) to have both or all of its subplots well-executed. Unlike "Ice Age: Continental Drift" in 2012, "Rio 2" in 2014, or "Ice Age: Collision Course" in 2016, which all had subplots that were "poorly executed" or described as "thin" and "underdeveloped" and led to their condemnations from critics and audiences and "inferiorities" to their better-received predecessors, "The Peanuts Movie" uses Snoopy's imaginary aerial battles with the Red Baron and his mission of saving Fifi as a "mirroring" (rather than a distraction for criticism in the film's quality) for Charlie Brown's struggles in his relatable but emotional and quiet quest to earn acceptance from his peers as a "true friend" and impress the Little Red-Haired Girl, even if he perceives himself as a "failure". I apologize for explaining this much, but I just hope that you understand my reasons (objective, not subjective) of re-classifying and evaluating the primary genres of "The Peanuts Movie" (as it is more than a simple animated "comedy film"). And whether the sources I provide are considered accepted, verifiable, and original research or unnecessary/unneeded, not sourced properly, and not considered as original research, I understand. But if you'll allow me to make the edits without providing the sources (professional, not personal) or allow me to continue my search of providing sources that do support my point and are authentically "original research", I'll wait for your permission. What matters to me is that you understand that I'm trying to intentionally, harmlessly, and with no vandalism actions, properly re-classify the animated film back into its primary genre (as it is now and was then considered more than a simple "comedy").
:I kindly ask of you to not block me from editing, but I also, again, apologize if these edits were violating Wikipedia's polices on Blue Sky Studios films, and for not considering how you felt about this, Joy020407. I will leave editing "Ice Age: Collision Course" and never tamper with it ever again, but I hope that you still understand the reasons of editing on the primary genres of "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and I will be waiting for your permission and consent first of allowing me to make the edits and provide original research (if I'm supposed to as supportive evidence). Also, I sincerely, trult, and deeply apologize for my attitude and tone towards you, especially in the warnings I gave you. I didn't mean to act nor sound that way to you and I regret it. If you give me the permission or consent to make the edits on "Rio" and "The Peanuts Movie" and provide original research as supportive evidence to my point, I will never act like that to you ever again. Inanimanitatist (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Request for guidance and cooperation on improving the genre of Rio (2011)



Hello, Joy020407,

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

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

Thank you again for your understanding and support. I look forward to your guidance on how it can be best to proceed. Have a nice day. (I am truly sorry for what I've done these last days and I will stop for now until I receive your permission on this.)

(P.S. I intend on doing the same thing for "The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 and "Ferdinand" in 2017. I will explain to you on both and on your "Talk page" someday, but for now, it is "Rio.') Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

:Why isn't this posted on Joy020407's talk page? Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026



25px|alt=Warning icon ↗ Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's harassment policy ↗, as you did at :User:Apokryltaros ↗, you may be blocked from editing ↗. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment.<!-- Template:uw-harass3--> It's been explained to you before that if a user deletes your message, do not restore it without expressed permission, otherwise, it's seen as harassment. Mr Fink (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

:I'm very sorry, I'm so sorry, Apokryltaros/Mr Fink. I didn't mean to harass you, a user, for what I said. I understand if you deleted my message and I sincerely apologize if I was harassing you or violating the "harassment policy" again.
:I just wanted to ask you if we could collaborate, under a safe environment, on refinements or improvements to the genre descriptions of 3 Blue Sky Studios/20th Century Fox Animation children's animated films I chose and if you saw the "Proposal" discussions and sources I left in their Talk pages. And/or if you could give me the permission to make specific genres to those animated films while also making sure that I reach a clear consensus in them.
:That's all I have to say. Please forgive me and I'm so sorry again if I harassed you or violated the "harassment policy." I didn't mean to, I didn't want to, and I'm very sorry.
:Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Edit summaries



Hiya, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that your edit summaries are way longer than they need to be, which makes them very hard to read. Additionally, they seem to end prematurely because of the summary word limit, thus making them even more incomprehensible. Please consider shortening your future edit summaries by only covering the essentials and leaving out unnecessary additional context. ''Signed, SleepyRedHair.'' (talk - contribs ↗) 15:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

:Thank you so much, SleepyRedHair, for your comment.


:Sorry, I was sleepy and fell asleep for the last 7 hours from exhaustion and editing/refining the genre description for "Rio" (2011) on Wikipedia for final edits.


:I'm sorry if my edit summaries were too lengthy and I won't make them more repetitive and incomprehensible and I will take note of what you stated and I will shorten my edit summaries more in the future. Thank you again for your comments.


:Also, I'm sorry for making them too lengthy because of frictions and feuding that I caused regarding the genre description of "Rio" (2011) to other long-time editors like Harryhenry1, Apokryltaros (or Mr Fink), and Joy020407. I'm sorry if I reasoned out with and explained my arguments and justifications to them too much, but all I just wanted to be constructive to "Rio" and I don't want to continue the cycle of feuding and frictions between them, find middle ground and a compromise with them (from the temporary truce that I started in the discussions I left in the article's "Talk page), and not repeat this issue with them again (and you, if I got you roped in it).


:I will continue to make constructive and patient contributions to "Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie" in 2015 and "Ferdinand" in 2017 (2 more children's animated films from Blue Sky Studios), but I will be more careful and constructive with my edits and continue to take note of what you (and Harryhenry1) stated, follow the right directions, and make my edit summaries more shorter for them.


:You're welcome for my constructive contributions, thank you so much, and have a very nice day ahead.
:Inanimanitatist (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist
::Thank you for your response, happy editing! ''Signed, SleepyRedHair.'' (talk - contribs ↗) 23:47, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Sorry to message you again, SleepyRedHair, but I was finishing up on some homework I had in my school before I could message you again, but I'm free now after 6 or 7 hours.
:::Anyway, can I ask you a short but brief request: please open up a discussion and talk to Harryhenry1, just in case he tries to or reverts your contributions to the official Wikipedia page for "Rio" (2011) as well as mine. I don't want to keep up making more reasonable edit summaries nor reason out with him again and again. And like I mentioned, I don't want to cause frictions or further feuds between him (and you or others).
:::Also, may I ask you for permission if 3 genres are allowed in the limit of a genre description of a film on its Wikipedia article (if not only 2)? Because "Rio" in 2011 is an American animated "musical adventure-comedy film," not just an animated "adventure comedy film."
:::Hope you can talk to Harryhenry1 before he can revert our constructive contributions again and thank you very much (again).
:::Inanimanitatist (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist
::::My apologies, I've now restored it to where SleepyRedHair left it, since it basically now has a warning to not alter it further. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:::::I'm glad you restored SleepyRedHair's edits to "Rio" (2011), but I hope that you apologized to SleepyRedHair herself/himself, since you reverted his/her edits in the first place instead of mine.
:::::Anyways, please don't respond to the rest of it, but I'd like to remind you that while I appreciate you telling me that you restored the edits of SleepyRedHair back to where they belong, I don't want you to reply to the conversations that I have between myself and SleepyRedHair again.
:::::Also, I'll be planning to do the same for "Snoopy and Charlie Brown: The Peanuts Movie" (or "The Peanuts Movie") in 2015 and "Ferdinand" in 2017, 2 more Blue Sky Studios "children's animated films," but this time, I'll be leaving more discussions on the article's "Talk pages" first before I make my final genre refinements, as well as take cautious, patient, and constructive actions and contributions.
:::::Please don't respond (as I tell you again), but that's all I have to say. And I'll talk to SleepyRedHair more about these matters but leave ones for you on different discussions (but not this one anymore). Thank you.
:::::Inanimanitatist (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

LLM use



Please clarify if you have used any AI tools (such as ChatGPT) in the process of editing. Please note doing so is generally not allowed ↗. Fermiboson (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

:My apologies for not replying to you in the last 5 hours.
:No, never. I have never used any AI tools (including ChatGPT) in the process of editing every page I choose to edit. Everything I've written, added, or removed to a specific Wikipedia page I choose (mostly ones on children's animated films) is completely original and I always find a reliable, official, and/or canon source to cite, and always stick to following or observing Wikipedia's policies.
:Also, I will take note of this "LLM" rule/policy you introduced me to today and that doing so is not allowed (or never allowed).
:Thank you. Good day.
:Inanimanitatist (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Inanimanitatist

Edit summaries (again)



Do you understand that there is a limit to how many words can be included in each edit summary? Because your explanations get so long they also keep getting cut off as a result. Can you try to keep them shorter and less long winded? Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

:Sorry for the late response after 10 hours, Harryhenry1. Yes. Yes, I will. Sorry about that. Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
::Your edit summaries are still getting cut off due to their length. Do you understand the problem? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_children%27s_animated_films&oldid=1353466500 Harryhenry1 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry for the late reply again after 11 hours, Harryhenry1.
:::You're right, I probably should've written my edit summaries as discussions on your Talk page instead, but I reminded myself that I should not leave anything on your Talk page so that I don't cause any fights nor frictions between us after the Blue Sky Studios films "genre refinements" issue had been already settled.
:::And yes, I do understand the problem and I'll definitely make them shorter next time. But I just wanted to tell you that you were right on some parts but I was right on some parts (neither of us were right on all parts) and I wanted to make one more addition and one more removal (both for correction purposes). Still, I'll make them shorter. Inanimanitatist (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article :The Amazing Digital Circus ↗. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers ↗. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-spoiler --> Chess enjoyer ↗ (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

:Understood. Sorry. Inanimanitatist (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Mixed to negative. Please avoid.



Please avoid bad writing, past discussions have repeatedly rejected this, here is one example of the multiple discussions on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative
-- &#126;2026-20754-35 ↗ (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)