Beyers31

August 2015

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Brazil (1985 film) and abuse of multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beyers31 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Indef). EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Permanent link to the WP:AN3 report about Beyers31. There was a prior AN3 (on 18 August) where several IPs (probably operated by Beyers31) were warring to remove any assertion that the film was a British production or had British participation. The August 18 report mentions four other film articles where the same problem occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Beyers31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure what the "abuse of multiple accounts" is referring to, because I only have/use this one. As for the edit warring, I apologize for that, but the user I have been "warring" with has been tremendously obnoxious regarding our disagreement. He repeatedly undid my edits before I could add proper citations, and then he removed my citations for numerous (all incorrect) reasons. He then went on to replace those citations with citations from worse sources with information that is unverifiable to essentially everybody (random magazines from decades ago). I apologize for doing all that changing on the page but I just want it to be the right information, whereas the user I was "warring" against seems to have some personal agenda regarding posting this specific incorrect information. Also, the information he put on the wikipedia page states that Brazil was produced by a company that doesn't even seem to exist. Another thing; it was written that I was blocked because I went on pages to "minimize British connection" to movies, and yes, I have done that several times. I have only done that in cases where the movie was not solely British though, or not British at all (according to various sources). Is that not the point of Wikipedia, to have the correct information? So I don't understand how doing that was bad for this website and cited as a reason for blocking me. And again, it has nothing to do with the British connection. I would remove a "U.S." description from a film page if they were not involved in its production; it's merely about the correct information

Decline reason:

Regarding edit warring: being right does not exempt you from having to follow the policy. Regarding the abuse of multiple accounts: I consider it plausible enought that this was you. Max Semenik (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2015 (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.

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).

Beyers31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't mean to say that that exempted me from following the policies, I just wanted to explain my reasoning, as I am new to wikipedia and I'm not sure what to do when something like this "warring" happens. What do I do if someone repeatedly changes my correct material with good citations to something that is incorrect and unverifiable, as has happened here? Either way, I will make sure this doesn't happen again once I know the proper course of action in a situation such as this one. Thank you for your help.

Decline reason:

To answer your query, you follow dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (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.

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).

Beyers31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Okay, I will now make sure that that doesn't happen again. May I please be unblocked now?

Decline reason:

Duplicate open request; see below. Kuru (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2015 (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.

For the record, this user had been prompted several times on their talk page, and in my own edits to take the discussion to the talk page before further editing. They also constantly removed my sourced instead of assuming good faith. I want to assume good faith, but there were over 7 warnings not met up there. :/Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I did not even know how to visit the talk page. Also for the record, that is a completely biased assessment of the situation so it is in your best interest not to consider what this other user is saying, as they were the person who was "warring" with me. Please stay off me page if you are just trying to carry over your issues from our disagreement Andrzejbanas, which is no longer a problem.Beyers31

Without commenting on the basic issue, have you ever seen a tab at the top of every single page, including your userpage, labeled "talk"?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have since become aware of where to find it but I've only been on wikipedia for a few days so it took me a little bit to figure the basic things out. Thanks. Beyers31

Out of curiosity, if unblocked, what do you intend to do? Continue repeatedly making those same changes you were trying to make? If not, what do you intend to do? pinging @EdJohnston: It might be worth reducing this from indef to a normal block length if the user is cooperative. The IPs he was using weren't given full {{uw-ew}}s in the first place, so I can kinda see the confusion. --slakr^\ talk / 02:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Any admin may lift or shorten this block if they are sure that User:Beyers31 will wait for consensus before making any more edits regarding the country of production of films. They should also agree to edit film articles using a single registered account, and no IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly on this page, I will not continue to change the page in question and will use wikipedia as it is intended and to try and make it better. I'm not sure what else I can say or do to be unblocked. And as I've also said, I haven't used multiple accounts and I don't plan to, so I'm not sure why that keeps getting brought up (I did make edits before I had an account, if that's the other account you are referring to, but since I have made this account I have not used any others). So please unblock me.Beyers31

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).

Beyers31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I please be unblocked now? I've repeatedly stated this won't happen again and I will stop editing the page in question.

Decline reason:

No response to follow-up question below. IP edits while blocked seem to be in the same pattern. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2015 (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.

• Oppose. So what are you going to do? So far you've done two things: widespread socking and chauvinistic edits to the nationality of films without supporting evidence. I don't think we need either of these back, thanks very much. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your unhelpful comments, but I believe you are the chauvinistic one. I did provide evidence and citations for my edits, so to wrongly want to take credit away from the USA and give to your own country, for whatever reason, proves your own chauvinism. And as I stated, I will no longer be getting into "wars" such as the one I have been blocked for, and will only use editing on wikipedia to better the website. Also, please don't visit my page again. Beyers31

To be clear, you were and are currently using 50.152.50.83 (talk), correct? Kuru (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that account seems to be blocked and the only other device I have I just checked and I am not blocked from editing on it (though I have not been editing on it). Also, though several of those edits from that user were on pages that I also edited, I've never even visited many of the pages listed in those edits, such as Blade 2. And again, as I've repeatedly stated I don't plan on editing on wikipedia in a manner such as the one which got me banned, I just want to help improve the site by adding useful and missing information to pages and fixing typos/uncited information and stuff like that. Beyers31

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Beyers31 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I said, that is not my account. The only other device I own which I can edit on is my phone and I've never used it to edit on Wikipedia, and I don't have such a strong need to edit on Wikipedia that I would break the rules to do so. Again, I definitely won't edit the article that got me banned and I promise to follow all of Wikipedia's rules and to contribute positively to this website; therefore, as stated in the page for reasons to unblock someone, I have said how it is no longer necessary to block me and the only way to prove this is by showing you when I am unblocked that this won't happen again. Please give me the chance to show you that, and don't block me forever due to my lack of knowledge about how this website works and how to properly edit on it. I made a mistake and now that I know a little more about how to use Wikipedia I won't let something like this happen again.

Accept reason:

I've given you a chance to prove yourself. Please don't disappoint — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Elon Musk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 08:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

YOU are the one who is reverting MY edits, without any proof and merely based on erroneous inferences on your part. "Formerly a Canadian" means he's no longer a Canadian. It doesn't mean he had to give it up when he became a US citizen as you seem to think it implies, but it NEVER explicitly states anything like that. The inferring and conjecture is solely on your part, not mine. Beyers31

Please read WP:BRD. It is up to you to establish consensus on the article's talk page before reverting your change to the status quo ante. Instead you are edit warring and will soon be in violation of WP:3RR. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not need consensus if I have citations from a credible source (which it is, according to Wikipedia), and if you have no evidence to suggest otherwise. That is, besides inference and conjecture. And no, you will be the one who is blocked because I am not the one who started reverting edits. Beyers31

You may believe that, but it's not the case. Again, I urge you to read WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

None of that addresses my arguments at all. It is just about edit warring, which I did not start. It has been you has reverted my cited edits with no evidence whatsoever and I have just been changing them back.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for reasons detailed here and here. You were unblocked because you promised to stop disrupting articles and edit warring, yet now you have resumed it. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 15:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)