Leo of Monterrey

Welcome!

Hi Leo of Monterrey! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

For whoever sent me the message, thank you.

I really feel welcome to edit. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2024 in film

The article 2024 in film has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's simply WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

List of American Films of 2024 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of American Films of 2024, is not suitable as written to remain published. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can fix the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline manual of style and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It probably isn’t ready to exist but it’s my best attempt, and therefore, anyone can write with it. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said, you’re free to edit. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Spider-Man: Far From Home, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Yoshikawa

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mark Yoshikawa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Geramany (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

No sorry I didn't understand. Send a short summary. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Jo Willems moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jo Willems, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 04:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh man 😞 Leo of Monterrey (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Creating Pages without Sources

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

However i have noticed that you recently created a page and published it to Wikipedia Mainspace without adding any sources. While the subject maybe Wikipedia:Notable, it is advised to build and develop such articles in Draftspace or Sandbox where you can comfortably edit without disruptions and add Wikipedia:Reliable sources to it. Please do not move the article back to mainspace, kindly edit in draftspace then submit for review for an AFC reviewer to approve.

Happy Editing! Jamiebuba (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks man but I’m not understanding. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

List of ensemble movies moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of ensemble movies, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. More info: This might be a plausible topic but right now it is completely unsourced and fails WP:LISTN, which covers notability for lists. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does this happen to me? Leo of Monterrey (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Devotion (2022 film), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. pipe058 23:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Poor/unpopular choice

What you did was essentially making the page of Spider-Man: No Way Home sound subjective and biased. In the context of most MCU films that nearly received critical acclaim, we simply just state what elements that film was praised and criticized. Most notable examples such as Black Panther, Iron Man and Endgame.

Stop creating edit conflicts as what you did to NWH, PLEASE. Alvin mogus (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand what you said. If you think I caused an editing problem, explain it. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your edits/articles

Hi, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I'm seeing a lot of your article creations are getting deleted or sent to draft space. Do you need help understanding how Wikipedia works, or what you're doing wrong? Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes I do need help and need to know why people are criticizing me here Leo of Monterrey (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so it seems like you're getting a lot of comments about not following the "general notability guidelines. Often shortened down to the WP:GNG. Have you read over the GNG? Understanding it is essential if you wish to create new articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No I have never read the GNG, mainly because I didn’t know there was such a thing like that. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, well, definitely start by reading up on that. The other thing is that all info anyone adds to Wikipedia must be verified (WP:V) by adding reliable sources WP:RS). So, for example, creating articles without a single source at all is basically an auto-fail of the article. You need to be adding sources to articles. Check out WP:REFB for help on how to add sources to articles. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is that mandatory? Leo of Monterrey (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is the foundation of how the entire website works. And it's why you keep running into issues. There are fan wikias that are way less strict on sources, but not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok Leo of Monterrey (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if you want further help. Please take what I've said to heart though. You've received enough notifications and warnings on talk pages that admin are going to start temporarily blocking your account from editing if you keep breaking these sorts of rules. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks dude Leo of Monterrey (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Avatar

Leo, in your edit here, you added improperly sourced information about the overall critical reception. Per WP:FILMLEAD, overall critical reception needs to "reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources". This means that a reliable source needs to come up with that summary. We cannot form that on our own, because doing so is a form of original research which is not permitted. Please undo your edit and if needed, discuss further on the article talk page. Thank you. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to, but the pages have to let everyone know what the critics liked and didn't like Leo of Monterrey (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware that Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources? Have you read Verifiability? If you are unable to show that a reliable source came up with this critical summary, then it will be removed for violating policy. It sounds like you are new here, so I advise taking the time to review existing guidelines (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) and to ask for help at The Teahouse when you are unsure about something. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I am. I put one on the Wakanda Forever page after I put the fact that Ryan Coogler and Kevin Feige discussed a third Black Panther film, and a guy later told me that I needed my article to be sourced, so I went to Screen Rant for the source. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

So who came up with this? "Whereas the visuals, direction, characterization, cinematography, musical score and production values were praised, the screenplay, plot and 192 minute running time were criticized." Keep in mind that this implies a significant number of critics feel this way about each item. How do you know that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The last guy who edited the page before I added this exact information yesterday at 7pm Leo of Monterrey (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

So is it fair to say that it's not supported by a reliable source? If it is, then you are expected to show that it is, since you re-added it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If someone did it before me it’s fair Leo of Monterrey (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll take your response as meaning, "No, I don't have a reliable source. I re-added it, because someone else did." The statement will eventually get removed if it is not properly sourced. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well you asked for it Leo of Monterrey (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The Family Plan

Excuse me but there’s already a draft of the The Family Plan in the works and the film hasn’t begun filming yet. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to the “List of Apple TV+ original films” page, it has. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Rogers (film editor) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paul Rogers (film editor), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

No evidence of notability. IMDb is not a reliable source so not suitable as a reference. Indagate (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No sorry I didn’t know how the ref name works Leo of Monterrey (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023

One or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. We discussed above the issue with creating this summary on your own, so you should be well aware by now that a reliable source needs to make that kind of conclusion, not you. Consider visiting the welcome page which provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss the concern further, please start a new discussion on the article's talk page. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I did what I had to do. Sorry. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that continued disruption could lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you need help, now is the time to seek it. The Teahouse is a good place to start, and you can also request mentoring through Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you’re the one with the problems man Leo of Monterrey (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Leo, I've already explained to you last November that adding sources are mandatory. It looks like you've violated this multiple times since we last spoke. "I did what I had to do" is not an acceptable response here. If you do it again, your account will be temporarily blocked from editing. There's multiple people willing to help you, but ignoring this is not an option. But if you don't have interest in using sources when you write, then editing Wikipedia is not the hobby for you. Think carefully about what you want to do here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’ll try to understand your weird-ass explanation about my supposed “destruction” of articles which is overly long…. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're confusing me with someone else, but I'm referring to this relatively brief and simple conversation here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I know who you are Leo of Monterrey (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. I thought maybe you were confused because at no point did I say anything about "destruction" of articles. I'm also troubled that you found that explanation as "overly long" or "weird". It was a brief explanation of the most basic premise of the website. Are you sure you're ready to be editing Wikipedia? You don't seem particularly concerned or motivated to be learning how to do this the right way. Sergecross73 msg me 22:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are you now making edits with vague/misleading edit summaries right now? As someone else noted, this description doesn't actually explain why you made the edit. And there's this one too - you didn't change their order, you deleted all but one. Both of these were pointed out by others, so it's not just me. Between this and the fact that you still haven't committed to using sources, isn't exactly convincing me that you're ready to be editing Wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 19:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do you guys hate me? Leo of Monterrey (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't hate you, but I need you to follow the rules. That means adding sources when you add/change content, and not using misleading edit summaries. Can you do this or not? Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, on the case of The Electric State’s page, the editor and composer were already confirmed. Someone added them before me. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That was not my question. Re-read my actual question, and answer that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll try. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Country in infobox for film articles

Please stop going around film articles changing the film's country in the infobox. I've reverted all of it as unsourced and provided sources to prove it, even though the WP:BURDEN is on you. Mike Allen 19:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No I’m actually doing it so that a local TV guide page Can know what countries the production companies are from so it doesn’t have to tell that the movie is from one specific country. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Spy film into List of spy films. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What Leo of Monterrey (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You copied the three paragraphs of the lead at Spy film, to List of spy films without attribution. Please read the notice and links. Indagate (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I needed lore Leo of Monterrey (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia is allowed, just need to attribute. Indagate (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of spy films for deletion

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

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

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

Indagate (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m not understanding. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't get discourage. Just look at what they have listed as their reasons, and see if you have a valid count towards their argument. I have already posted why I believe the article should be kept. Dream Focus 03:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks man. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

This edit here shows yet another example of making unsourced changes to article, (and another borderline misleading edit summary to boot.) You've been warned many times for this, so you are now blocked for 1 week. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Damn it. Everywhere I go, chaos follows me. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you got caught not following the rules you were warned about many times very recently. You did this yourself with bad decision making. I don't know how to be more clear about this - you need to use sources when you add/change content to Wikipedia. If you can't, or won't, do this, your block will be upped to indefinite. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I ensue chaos everywhere I go. You guys are the chaos. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

You have nothing to say about refusing to follow the rules? That's not chaos, that's incompetence. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s chaos and I can’t escape it. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop screwing around. Do you have anything rational and coherent to say about this? You're not exactly instilling confidence that this issue is going to be resolved after a week block. Sergecross73 msg me 23:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m trying to. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No, you're not, you're just babbling about "chaos following you". You haven't even started to say a single word about the actual block of your account. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did, those like four responses. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's the best you can muster up over the course of a day, then I can see no stronger argument for the fact that you are simply not ready to be editing Wikipedia at this point in your life. I've extended your block to indefinite.

Someday, if you're ever ready to discuss your past actions, and how you plan on following policies when you're editing Wikipedia in the future, you can request an WP:UNBLOCK or WP:PING me to discuss coming back. But you're clearly not ready right now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

More false edits being found

Congrats on having this fake budget on John Wick: Chapter 4 remain in the article for TWO months. It's gone now though and luckily so are you. Mike Allen 20:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone will restore it. Don’t be happy. Leo of Monterrey (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jo Willems

Hello, Leo of Monterrey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jo Willems, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jo Willems

Hello, Leo of Monterrey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jo Willems".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)