User talk:Erenyeager008

Welcome!

Hello, Erenyeager008! 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; 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. Happy editing! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice and suggestions. I'll do my best in contributing to Wikipedia Erenyeager008 (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

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 The Revenant (2015 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. Prairie Astronomer ^{Contributions} 15:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. Thanks for your advice and suggestions. Erenyeager008 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm Miner Editor. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dark Shadows (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 your 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. Miner Editor (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a mistake. Thanks for your advice Erenyeager008 (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Wick (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Chompy Ace 11:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will take care of that. Thanks for your suggestion Erenyeager008 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DarkAudit. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to K.G.F: Chapter 2—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. DarkAudit (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at K.G.F: Chapter 2, you may be blocked from editing. Miner Editor (talk) 06:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get understand Erenyeager008 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I understand. Erenyeager008 (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Lol1VNIO. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to House of the Dragon—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Barbie (film)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been warned multiple times now for edit warring and disruptive editing. You've continued this pattern of behavior at Star Wars: The Last Jedi with edits like this one, followed by repeated attempts here and here. Despite acknowledging you understand, it is clear that you don't. You may be blocked from editing if you continue to be disruptive.

This is your last warning. Any response here, including the deletion of this message, will be taken as evidence you have read it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Erenyeager008 reported by User:Nemov (Result: ). Thank you. Nemov (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your recent editing history at Adipurush shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, instead of incessantly engaging in unnecessary edits, care to go through the reviews if you can read. Most of the negative reviews hold a positive view toward the acting in Adipurush. Prove that they do not, and until then it says there. Erenyeager008 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adipurush. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ronsaur (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. Learn to appreciate contributors Erenyeager008 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

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 Justin Bieber, 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. --WikiUser1234945-- (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Oppenheimer (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ภץאคгöร 12:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2001: A Space Odyssey, you may be blocked from editing. Barry Wom (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbenheimer Edits

You are attempting to start an edit war on both the Oppenheimer and Barbie pages in regards to the Barbenheimer phenomenon. I see you have a history of starting edit wars and temporary bans from editing. Please disengage from continuing to delete and instead go to the talk page on either article; a topic has been created on both in regards to Barbenheimer. BakedintheHole (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They continue to remove information and edit war on both pages. ภץאคгöร 11:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other editor Talk pages

About an hour ago, an editor made a complaint against you at Daniel Case's Talk page and you reverted it. Your removal was clearly an attempt to avoid scrutiny for allegations of edit-warring posted to an administrator who has blocked you twice in the past for edit-warring. I've restored the other user's post, but consider this a warning. If I see you messing around with other editors' Talk pages again, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because they said I was blocked on Oppenheimer page before which I was not. I found it as ruse, for the lack of a better word, to had me banned from editing as I deleted some of their biased and redundant edits on Oppenheimer page to make the movie page look more professional and formal. But I admit, I shouldn't have reverted his complain,I should have responded to him. I apologise if my action came across as attempt at avoiding scrutiny and criticism. Erenyeager008 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Erenyeager008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm unable to understand as to why I'm blocked from editing; my edits on Oppenheimer page are constructive. I admit I deleted some sentences on the page but that's because I found it valid to do so, as many phrasing on the page is awkward and feel skewed toward a negative perception of the film

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked because of the contents of your edits, you are blocked for edit warring, the same reason you were previously blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

. Erenyeager008 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Oppenheimer (film) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to do this because I still believe that you can edit productively and collaboratively, and now you have the rest of the project to demonstrate this. Alternatively, if you don't, this block can be extended to other pages or even the whole site. It's up to you. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, I was just trying to do the right thing, you can review my editing history on the page in question. It was never my intention to be disruptive,but I understand why it may have come across as such. I would be thankful if you go through my editing history on Oppenheimer page and reconsider the ban. Erenyeager008 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As your arrogant ass has refused to respond then you should might as well ban me altogether Erenyeager008 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]