User talk:Thomasp3864

December 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Odysseus has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Odysseus was changed by Thomasp3864 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.937147 on 2015-12-05T22:48:12+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Enema has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Enema was changed by Thomasp3864 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884053 on 2016-04-18T23:45:47+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of exceptional asteroids has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of exceptional asteroids was changed by Thomasp3864 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897569 on 2016-04-29T02:01:32+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Hello, I'm Dcirovic. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Disambiguation (disambiguation)— 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. Dcirovic (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Disambiguation (disambiguation) with this edit. 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. Dcirovic (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Good Omens, you may be blocked from editing. So Why 08:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ỿ

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ỿ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DSmurf (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adam and Steve 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. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Counter-protest. - Vanstrat (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long term disruptive editing.

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 ~~~~}}.

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).

Thomasp3864 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I have learned from how I messed up a few years ago. I wish to actually be constructive, and will not try to editorialise wikipedia as I realise I was trying to do rather pointlessly. I will be constructive in future, and took a break from it. I would like to actually help here, rather than hurt. I think I have learned and will reserve my opinions for talk pages where I will ask for input before considering to put guesses, and not be an idiot. Thomasp3864 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been evading your block. Please see the standard offer. If you can go six months without editing, we'll reconsider your block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2020 (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.