User talk:Callingdogsofthunder

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Marvelous Marvin Hagler. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Minimac's Clone (Vandalise here) 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Joe Frazier has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies. I now see that you were only removing dated talk page material. However, it is always best to include an edit summary with your edits to avoid misunderstandings. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Thrilla in Manila has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Avono♂ (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marvelous Marvin Hagler

Please cite your sources rather than continually reverting. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marvelous Marvin Hagler. 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.

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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --Michig (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of weasel words

You have replaced the weasel words "It's claimed some" to Dog meat. [1] It is also original research, because the claim is based on the author of the sources own words. I am giving you a chance to self revert. AlbinoFerret 14:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Dog meat‎. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]