User talk:PutThisUserNameInNotes

December 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sherlock Holmes (2009 film), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Sixth Sense 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. DonIago (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wonder Woman (2017 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Wonder Woman (2017 film), you may be blocked from editing. --67.183.139.157 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Wonder Woman (2017 film). DonQuixote (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been blocked for one week for edit warring, adding unsourced content, lying in edit summaries and personal attacks. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I abused the editing resource by pushing my POV, but I promise not to do this again. Please unblock me, and I promise I won’t misuse the editing feature of Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

This doesn't come close to addressing the problems here, and I'm really surprised you were only blocked for 1 week. Yamla (talk) 10:15, 19 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.