User talk:Beachwithz

April 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Development of Windows XP. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Jungle Book (2016 film).
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: The Jungle Book (2016 film) was changed by Beachwithz (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960913 on 2016-04-17T05:12:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history at The Jungle Book (2016 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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. Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blizzard Beach photo

Is there a reason behind your revert on my edit of the Blizzard Beach photo to the Blizzard Beach article? No war on this or anything, just wanted to know your reasoning.

Windyshadow32 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

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 ~~~~}}. Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]