User talk:Capbeetle61

December 2016

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tony Montana have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Brie

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Dbfirs 22:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you were not prepared to accept other editors' opinions. Please read WP:ENGVAR. If you believe that you were correct, please discuss the changes that you wish to make on the talk page of the article. Please don't mark significant changes as minor, but explain your edit in the summary. Dbfirs 23:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Brie. 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. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 11:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Brie. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Train to Busan, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Train to Busan was changed by Capbeetle61 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852571 on 2016-12-20T10:53:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Brie. Jim1138 (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]