User talk:Ariyen

Archives

/Archive1

Hi, I noticed your edit summaries on Jeremy Renner and realized that you might not be aware that imdb is not considered a reliable source for wikipedia articles. You can learn more at WP:IMDB. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which is sad considering they confirm their information with the entertainment industry. I have both an imdb pro and regular account. I notice this when I added the current filming of Mayor of Kingstown that they post about on instagram as the new cast was already in it. Even still, one editing reverting for no reason of information that's not in the actual movies? yea, I think you might ought to not fuss on me, but them for vandalizing and posting false information. *rolls eyes* If you undo me and watch the credits and see I'm right, I'll laugh at your own mistakes. I've watched all that to know what is written in the credits, like before I edited the page. I go for accuracy, not whatever they did. You can't cite sources on every single damn thing. Ariyen (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jeremy Renner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jeremy Renner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jeremy Renner My Next Breath Book Backcover.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay8g [V•T•E] 09:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Jeremy Renner My Next Breath.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jeremy Renner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person is using content that is not allowed on the wiki by opinion personal influenced by the accusor as she's been going to all of these sites with her side of the story. That is bias story telling is it not? I understood that was not allowed here. Yet, I am in the wrong? I feel this going to court for both sides would be better for the wiki no? I do not feel that I am breaking the wiki rules. But upholding and removing biased opinions. With others not knowing everything and wishing to add. I think this is a better course of action Ariyen (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Jeremy Renner, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would notice them being offended because I told of what I had been seeing. I do not take sides. I hope it goes to court. I do not trust these sites right now because of her trying to manipulate them after she failed on social nedia... noting that finding out she had done this before. I do not agree with what he has done but until facts are presented. I find everything one sided and biased with false information that's manipulated and nothing that seems to show good faith of it all from either party. I do not feel a personal vendetta is needed, but accurate information that's not clearly biased. Claiming that I am in the wrong shows that you agree with the biased information and slander and I would need to bring to the attention of other administrators to weigh in on their opinion. I say this because she had been tagging all of the media. People, rolling Stones, tmz, daily mail, enquire, etc. on all of her social media and contacting the influencers, media personnel, etc. On here, she tried editing her own pages. I could say more, but this is intentional to lasting damage. Something that if he is innocent. He does not deserve at all. No one does on their page. It doesn't show who they are. It shows how others view of them. This should not be treated as a summery of a media outlet smearing against someone without legal and legitimate proof that's not photo stealing, editing, etc. Ariyen (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Jeremy Renner. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Shearonink (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They did not assume Good faith and added in biased information. I corrected it and I am the problem? I have been on here longer than that one. I know how to not take side or view each person to see the sites and see if it's one sided or not. Much have been on one side of the other and not everything accurate at all. It's biased and slander for either party. Ariyen (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop this, Ariyen. I used reputable sources and this is being reported on by many outlets. Furthermore many pages of other celebrities have documented allegations on them, many of which didn't go to court either. You cannot just pick and choose because this happens to be against a celebrity you like.(PaulThomas92 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC))[reply]

You used outlets that she went to and contacted and bragged about on her socials. It's biased. Not my problem that you don't pay attention. You assumed without researching either party etc. This biased and it's shown on her socials. Facebook, Instagram, Twitterv(X), etc. Ariyen (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim reputable. She contacted those sites.

How is that fair and not biased?

There's proof of her contacting people for attention.

Including tmz filming her of which she admitted to others that she contacted these people.

It's appalling and yes was difficult trying to research everything. It's why I was waiting for court before I had plans of posting it. Making sure that it was not influenced and non biased reporting.

You jumped the gun posting from sites she contacted...

Now, I hope you see why I reverted you of which you 1rred me in poor faith without asking.

I pay attention. I do not pick sides.

I do not like her. Nor do I approve of some of his clear poor choices.

But err is human. I think both could do a lie detector. He might cheat though. But truth syrum might help. And I feel that with honesty. Could see if it's actual alligations or something else.

Usually alligations are done with court etc. like Amber and Johnny .

That showed who was legit and who was"fake". To me, that's non biased reporting and what should be on a wiki. Not things that make one appear guilty, if they happen to be innocent.

Ariyen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last word from me and then you two can hash it out with each other... In my opinion you both are being pejorative towards each other. This other editor got the same notice. I really don't want to get in the middle of the issues you two have with each other's editing, just wanted to give you both a heads-up about WP:3RR and the possible edit-warring. If you think you two are going to contionue to have intractable difficulties, then you could walk away/withdraw, or ask for some of the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, especially resolving content disputes, WP:SEEKHELP, & if needful, eventually Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - Shearonink (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]