User talk:Thomsboys77

November 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. An edit you recently made to The Deer Hunter seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Donner60. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Donner60 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. A comment like this is disrespectful an could land you a lengthy or indefinite block. — Calvin999 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to The Shining (film). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you continue to make at Bob Hope and Lawrence of Arabia (film) have been reverted by multiple editors. You need to seek consensus on the associated article talk pages for the changes you wish to make. Blindly reverting to restore the disputed material will ultimately lead to a block of your account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at John Lennon, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring to restore unsourced and contested content and for your complete lack of communication or discussion with other editors who have expressed concerns regarding your edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 5 albert square (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nsk92. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Come Outside has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]