User talk: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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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 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 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:. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive291#User:Beyers31_reported_by_User:Andrzejbanas_.28Result:_Indef.29 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)


 * 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  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 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


 * 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, 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

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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 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:. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)