User talk:Re1ny.Dev

March 2020

Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Coco Chanel—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. PATH SLOPU 03:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Coco Chanel. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Anne Frank 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have reverted your edits.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

You need to stop this behavior now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why, after the extensive discussion here and on Talk:Anne Frank#Removal of “speculative content”, and being warned about edit warring, you decided to once again add the material that at least six editors so far have reverted or objected to.[7] Your edits are WP:OR and a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:REPUTABLE. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here, if you repeat those edits, or anything similar, you will be blocked or banned from editing that article. Guy (help!) 10:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 00:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Lauren Sanderson at a Popcrush Interview.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lauren Sanderson at a Popcrush Interview.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair 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 fair 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:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion 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 (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 6 months for violation of our policy on living people. 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 ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This allows you to propose changes via Talk pages, which will help you to get to grips with our sourcing requirements. I have raised this for review at the administrators' noticeboard. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]