Your edit on Men in black is being removed for a number of reasons;

• It is Original Research
• It includes a direct link to a Youtube video that is a copyright violation
• It is cited with a link to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself.

Please don't add this again without a cite to a reliable source that discusses "Men in black" in relation to this film. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense. The video is not a copyyright violation and contains the reference. You only have to look at it to see. I will keep adding it back since it's an important and relevant to the evolution of the MIB myth in popular culture. Just because it's not been cited elsewhere does not mean it is not material. You are denying users a useful reference on aubsject you not qulaified to judge. Leave it alone and go away.

Please calm down and try to understand what you are being told. Read the blue links below.

• Firstly the video on Youtube is a copyright violation, or how else can you explain the random unknown person uploading it? How do they own the copyright on it?
• Secondly, please understand that what you are doing is original research. You are looking at the film, and you are deciding it is a reference to "men in black". You also say that this is the "first known appearance" of the same. Where does this claim come from? "Known" by who? Who knows that there are no earlier ones? Again, is it you deciding all this?
• Adding a cite to another Wikipedia page is not acceptable. Otherwise anyone could add anything and cite something they themselves added to Wikipedia elsewhere.

Basically you need a reliable source that makes the connection to Men in black from this film. Then you need to cite it. You cannot be the one making the claims or the connections. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Men in black 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. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish you are engaging in a war deleting my contribution without justification. I have provided two references and you have deleted both of them. You are in violationof the guidelines. You should be blocked permanently!

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Men in black—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. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean not "constructive." It's the first appearance ever on film 20 years before the X-files how can that not be constructive? Idiots like you are ruining the wiki experience turning it into a mindless troll pit. People will stop using it and referencing it if the information is not current or relevant. 2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 (talk) 13:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required. You need to read and understand the relevant Wikipedia editorial policies rather than automatically assume several experienced editors are wrong and you, a brand new user with no experience, are right. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Men in black. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vandalizing but adding a useful addition to which you have no reasonable objection. You're vandalizing knowledge. You're a censor not an editor. 2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is not a censor troll Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder wiki is on its last legs with abusive and incompetent editors ruining it! 2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. Doing so may be disruptive and result in your block. Sarrail (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no one ruins it just go back to school Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbf**k and you call other people a troll. Wiki used to be fun and informative. Now it's neither. Ruined by brain dead-trolls who only know how to delete other people's knowledge but no nothing themselves and are abusie and obnoxious. I'm logging your abusive comments. 2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as done at Men in black.

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 ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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:2001:9E8:37E:4900:7805:15C5:9819:7A33 reported by User:Blaze Wolf (Result: ). Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]