User talk:136.49.32.166

Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 22:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Nightscream (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your host, 136-49-32-166.googlefiber.net (136.49.32.166), is registered to Google Fiber, an Internet service provider through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy, so you may receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. Review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, administrators should consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Violett Beane, you may be blocked from editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits to the Adam Hughes article consist of arbitrary sentence divisions and rearrangements of wording which having nothing to do with "improving" either diction nor grammar, as they're stylistic in nature, and at best, are driven by your personal aesthetics, and not principles of good writing.

In fact, your "similar to a" passage is just plain wrong, grammatically. If you want to say that one thing is similar to another, you say, "The poster features 11 female characters standing and/or sitting abreast of one another, in a manner similar to a Vanity Fair gatefold layout." You don't just drop the phrase "similar to" in the middle of the sentece like that.

As for the detail about the "last minute" change of DC's instruction to Hughes regarding the inclusion of Catwoman, that detail is perfectly reasonable to include, as it helps illuminate for the reader the serendipitous and contigent way in which iconic works sometime come about, which readers may want to know about. Nightscream (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

136.49.32.166, in case you're not aware of it, when there's an ongoing discussion about a disputed passage or section in an article, then editing of that section by the parties involved must be paused. Continuing to revert or edit during discussion is a blockable offense, just so you know. Please wait for the discussion to reach its natural conclusion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to you on your Talk page, but I'll post it here as well. I don't think that Sakura emad is malicious, but that doesn't change the fact that she's making numerous errors and creating avoidable problems. 136.49.32.166 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi anon, I came across this issue today and wanted to be clear about the issue and next steps. As others have pointed out, the way you've been interacting with Sakura emad is not appropriate. You posted on Sakura's talk page despite having been

IP, please stop with the socking allegations, OK? There is no substance to them. Just drop it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. It has been blocked from editing to prevent further abuse.
If you are not the intended target of this block, please read the information below in order to receive assistance.

Wikipedia tries to be open, but we sometimes must block IP addresses to prevent editing by abusers, vandals, or block evaders. These blocks can affect users who have done nothing wrong. If you are a legitimate user, follow the instructions below to edit despite the block. Users who are the intended target of a range block may still appeal the block.

IP users (without an account): If you do not have an account and wish to bypass this block, an account can be created to allow you to edit. In general, these blocks only prevent users who are not logged in from editing; once you are logged in, the block will no longer affect you in any way. To request an account, simply click here and follow the directions provided on the page. It is important that you use an e-mail address issued to you by your ISP, school, or organisation, so we may verify that you are a legitimate user. When filling out the account request form, please refer to this block in the "comments" input field. If you've been instructed to request an account via email, please refer to this block in your message.

Registered users (with an account): Please make sure you are logged in to your account. If you are unable to edit while logged in, you may request IP block exemption to bypass blocks unconnected with you that affect your editing. Post an unblock request to your user talk page.

Administrators:

IP block exemption, without consulting a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

IP, log in to edit, stop harassing editors. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Katherine McNamara. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Pointless disruption, for an IP that's already engage in a lot of it based on this page's history. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (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.

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your edit to Becky Cloonan violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has been reverted.

Whether the public knows that an upcoming publication exists is not a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia not a promotional platform, but an encyclopedia. The criteria for inclusion is that the material in question that goes to a subject's

In addition, while Wikipedia allows one-time editors to edit anonymously, it expects those who intend to edit more frequently to sign in for a username account. It's free, takes only seconds to sign up, and it allows the rest of the community to get to know you as an individual. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm being trolled by another user, Nightscream, and his buddies.

Decline reason:

If you won't treat other editors with courtesy even in an unblock request, there's no reason to waste our time considering this. Acroterion (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2021 (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.

• You are blocked for logged-out editing, which is severely disruptive. Log into your account, always--especially since you are editing disruptively on the same articles and pages both logged in and out. And stop edit warring, or you'll be blocked for that too. [After ec:] Personal attacks may also lead to a block. Seriously, choose a different path. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not logged in and out or used alternate IPs to edit the Becky Cloonan article. And again, I have added secondary sources. Moreover, if we go by what Nightscream said about publications not needing sources after they're published, there's no reason to revert the additions I made for Wonder Woman. Cloonan and Conrad have been writing Wonder Woman for months!136.49.32.166 (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Doesn't matter: it's a habit with you. Use your account. And whether those sources are reliable or not remains to be seen. Finally, you need to stop insulting other editors. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • "Doesn't matter"? So this block is arbitrary just because you're friends with Nightscream?136.49.32.166 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access revoked. The recent history of this IP's warnings are significant enough to make an exception to the normal userpage protocols. Acroterion (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I just saw that I overlooked the fact that the editor using this IP page had indeed added a

WP:CIV, et al, but I hope this demonstrates to this editor that we all make mistakes, and that if they intend to continue editing when the block has expired, will be more willing to collaborate. Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]