User talk:136.49.32.166

May 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. 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)
 * 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.

July 2021
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)


 * 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)

August 2021
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 User talk:Sakura emad. 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! –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)

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 asked not to do so. Despite a checkuser saying your sockpuppetry accusations were without merit you still opened an SPI against Sakura. This is not appropriate and is quite clearly making editing unpleasant for Sakura. Making mistakes is not an excuse for treating Sakura the way you have been, and multiple editors are already working to address their mistakes in a collegial manner. If you continue to have concerns, you should raise them with an administrator directly or at WP:ANI, but your hounding of Sakura needs to stop immediately. If you continue to violate our conduct policies you will be blocked from editing. If you have questions feel free to ask on my talk page, and I look forward to your constructive and collegial edits going forward. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

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)


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

September 2021
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. 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)
 * 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.

September 2021
 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:. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

November 2021
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Doctor Who (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Doctor Who (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
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 notability must be covered in secondary sources. While a work such as a film, TV episode or book can be its own primary source when once it's released or published, relying on the publisher as the source for the announcement of the work prior to its release violates these guidelines, and should be avoided whenever possible. I recommend using sources like CBR.com, Newsarama, IGN, etc., to cite as sources for information like this.

Also, blanking warnings, block notices and other messages pertaining to the policy violations committed from those using this IP is not a good idea. While archiving or even blanking a username talk page is permitted on Wikipedia, doing so with an IP page removes the sense of transparency that allows the rest of the editing community to see how this IP has been used, and may give the appearance that you or others using this IP are attempting to conceal those violations.

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)

 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:. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

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)


 * For the record, I just saw that I overlooked the fact that the editor using this IP page had indeed added a Bleeding Cool citation, and that when I reverted, I had not looked closely enough at their addition, jumping the gun in knee-jerk fashion. And it also looks like Drmies did too. Mea culpa. I apologize for not looking looking closely enough at their edit, and making the assumption that they were simply doing an indiscriminate revert, which is what I ended up doing. This is aside, of course, from the violations 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)