Hello, StewieGriffin1998! 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! Peaceray (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry 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 Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Joe Keery. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing against a very clear consensus, as discussed extensively on the article's talk page, the Dispute resolution noticeboard and at WP:AN/I. Another editor was indefinitely blocked shortly before you arrived for restoring these categories. Do not restore them again.

If you disagree with the consensus, you will need to discuss the issues on the talk page and establish a consensus to include them before you restore them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Beauty and the Beast (2017 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—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.
You have been reverted on this issue several times. Do not re-add the categories without a consensus to do so or you will be blocked from editing. This has been discussed at Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Is_2017_version_of_Beauty_and_the_Beast_a_feminist_movie?, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Overcategorization, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Category:Historical_romance_films, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Category:Films_about_bibliophilia, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Category:Films_about_narcissism, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Category:Feminist_films, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Category:Witchcraft_in_film, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Current_edit_war, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)/Archive_1#Removal_of_Films_based_on_fairy_tales_category, Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Excessive_removal_of_several_categories and Talk:Beauty_and_the_Beast_(2017_film)#Request_for_comment_re:_categories_of_this_film. It has also been discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard (twice), WP:AN/I (twice) and repeatedly on User_talk:Saiph121. Please note that Saiph121 has now been indefinitely blocked fro editing Wikipedia, specifically for restoring one of these categories after all of that discussion. SummerPhD^v2.0 04:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have not violated WP:3RR yet at Once Upon a Time (TV series), but you are still edit warring. Geraldo Perez presented reasons for his reverts (granted, in his edit summaries instead of the talk page), you've said nothing.

Discuss the matter at Talk:Once Upon a Time (TV series). Discuss all changes that get reverted on the article's talk page instead of just reverting without discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert this because I don't think it really matters at this point, but just so you know, WP:CATDEF says that after any eponymous categories, " ...the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Batman Begins. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Also, see WP:CATDEF. DonQuixote (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Batman Begins 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—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.
Per WP:CATDEF, do not re-add the category without showing that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having the defining characteristic or you will be blocked from editing. DonQuixote (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you would need to cite an expert that says what you're trying to say--because no one can verify that you're an expert. See WP:VERIFY. Also, discuss on the talk page. DonQuixote (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. DonQuixote (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting for your response there. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wall Street (1987 film). The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2018 (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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To get unblocked you'll need to respond here and address the concerns of other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

StewieGriffin1998 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have only been blocked because you disagree with my otherwise 99.9% truthful edits. You also have a clear history of blocking female editors and I just so happen to be female so this just another example of sexism from the male dominated wikipedia. I would wish to be unblocked, as I do only edit according to the rules and try to be as honest as possible in my writing, or I shall leave this clearly sexist site for good.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have only been blocked because you disagree with my otherwise 99.9% truthful edits. You also have a clear history of blocking female editors and I just so happen to be female so this just another example of sexism from the male dominated wikipedia. I would wish to be unblocked, as I do only edit according to the rules and try to be as honest as possible in my writing, or I shall leave this clearly sexist site for good. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have only been blocked because you disagree with my otherwise 99.9% truthful edits. You also have a clear history of blocking female editors and I just so happen to be female so this just another example of sexism from the male dominated wikipedia. I would wish to be unblocked, as I do only edit according to the rules and try to be as honest as possible in my writing, or I shall leave this clearly sexist site for good. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have only been blocked because you disagree with my otherwise 99.9% truthful edits. You also have a clear history of blocking female editors and I just so happen to be female so this just another example of sexism from the male dominated wikipedia. I would wish to be unblocked, as I do only edit according to the rules and try to be as honest as possible in my writing, or I shall leave this clearly sexist site for good. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Note block evasion and SPI --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]