User talk:Nolantron

April 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jason Bourne 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: Jason Bourne was changed by Nolantron (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891141 on 2014-04-25T00:00:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Aaron Cross, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Do not overwrite an article with information on a different subject. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bourne image

I've removed your image from the Jason Bourne article. Looking at the license, you claim the image as your own work, and a fan-drawn image of a specific fictional character is not the best choice for an illustration of the character. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nolantron, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nolantron! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Bourne Legacy (film). 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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.
Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned multiple times to stop adding photograph to Bourne Legacy, Matt Damon. You have constantly refused. This issue has already been settled years ago. ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Teresa44 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Bourne Legacy (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{div col end}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Teresa44 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Bourne (film series), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Millahnna (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at The Bourne Legacy (film). Millahnna (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at The Bourne Legacy (film). Please see MOS:FILM and WP:FILMCAST Millahnna (talk) 01:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Bourne (film series). Please see MOS:FILM and WP:FILMCAST Teresa44 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Bourne Legacy (film). 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.
Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nolantron reported by User:Doniago (Result: ). Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring across multiple articles, personal attacks, and blanking other user talk pages. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I have little tolerance for personal attacks such as the one you recently left on my Talk Page. If you disagreed with my revert, you could have easily chosen to discuss the issue but you instead decided to come at me in an uncivil manner. This is your only warning. The next time you upset the community with personal attacks, you will be reported. If you want to have a civil discussion, you know where to message me. DarkKnight2149 14:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just noticed that you have been blocked for this sort of thing before. This is going straight to WP:ANI. DarkKnight2149 14:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't mess with my changes fucker" is not an acceptable way to interact in a collegial environment, and you have been blocked for making personal attacks (among other things) before. The implied ownership is also not acceptable, and you must know that anything you add or change here can be subsequently changed by others. I hope this is just a moment of overheated emotion, and if you can make a convincing unblock request with an assurance that it will not recur then I will not object to an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Darkknight2149/sandbox, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please stop defacing other user's sandboxes. TJH2018 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing due to repeated personal attacks on other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. m.o.p 01:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nolantron, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. TJH2018 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nolantron, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

TJH2018 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nolantron, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

TJH2018 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]