User talk:Doctor Harablert

January 2017
Hello, I'm JudgeRM. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wind River (2017 film) 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. JudgeRM  (talk to me)  20:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wind River (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  The Old Jacobite The '45 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wind River (film) 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Wind River, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been repeatedly removing the same content without explanation, AND after having been warned by an admin, AND with the suspicion of creating a new account doing the same thing. Punkalyptic (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2019
And, the same behaviour has resumed:. what is this user's suspected other account that you think they've also used to edit this article, or to do similar edits on the 'pedia? , you've also given this user serious warnings for this tendentious blanking of content. This is looking like a promotional account and a WP:NOTHERE situation. I'm thinking block. As they've never responded, I see no reason why it shouldn't be an indef. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've found the other account, I think:. This personal attack deserved a block, but the user was only blocked for edit-warring on this same article (Wind River). - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sock notes:


 * 00:55, July 5, 2018 User account Ronald456as created.
 * See Wind River History June 27 - July 6. New account Ronald456as immediately picked up edit war of Doctor Harablert when that account reached 3RR. Quack. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

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. This is your last chance to become a productive editor. If the same disruption resumes when you return, I will have no problem going straight to an indefinite block. 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:. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Sequel

 * So it looks like you've returned to the same, and similar, articles to blank sourced content. There are also two other accounts that are following the same editing pattern, and look to be you as well: the abovementioned one, and . Anything to say before we proceed? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 17:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 18:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)