User talk:Sunny251

December 2020
Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at FKA Twigs. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision diffs
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced material
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please also read WP:OWN. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Final warning; deleting sourced-content/WP:OWN issues
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. OhNo itsJamie Talk

March 2021; removing sourced material again
I should block you, but since the last warning was from January, I'm going to give you another last chance; if you remove sourced material again without a reasonable explanation, and you will be blocked from editing. There will be no more warnings. If you try to sneakily remove that 6 months from now, you will be blocked immediately. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Any reason why you keep using "gerund" in edit summaries where the edits have nothing to do with a gerund? OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Batman (film)
Hello, you appear to be consistently deleting important details from this article's lead with edit summaries such as "movie's history already explained under production" as well as "update", "shortened", and "Further clean-up". Please stop this, you have been reverted numerous times by other editors. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead of the article is supposed to summarise all of the important details in the body: "[The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". For this article, that definitely includes the film's development history and the change from Ben Affleck to Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson. If you think it is too long then you could suggest ways to make it more concise, though I will say that the lead for this article is a fairly standard size for film articles in my experience. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

June 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Batman (film). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. —El Millo (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Robert Pattinson. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hayleez  (talk)  18:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring again; each subsequent block will be longer
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Next block will be indefinite
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Enough
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)