User talk:Thunderbelch

October 2016
Hello, I'm Ryk72. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Always on My Mind 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. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 21:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello, I'm KAP03. An edit that you recently made to Sphere seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, 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! -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Falkland Islands‎
Your recent edits to this page (such as this one [] look like vandalism. It may be you are just testing edits, I suggest you use your sandbox.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Exile (American band). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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 stop making disruptive edits, as you did at The Rolling Stones. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Rolling Stones. GnomeSweetGnome (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Moody Blues, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Moody Blues. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. ''this is not the first time this has been drawn to your attention. please stop it'' IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

UK English versus US English
Regarding your edits to the Moody Blues, they are a UK band, therefore the use of UK English is appropriate. This is not a matter of "Corrected erroneous, disrespectful (to schoolchildren AND adults AND teachers), inappropriate English language grammar. Schoolchildren in grades two and three are taught that a 'singular' subject noun requires a 'singular' verb!" but a matter of different grammatical usage on either side of the Atlantic. RGCorris (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "("The Moody Blues" is a 'singular' title. "are" is a 'plural' verb. "a" is a 'singular' adjective. "band" is a 'singular' noun. These rules regarding English grammar were taught and are being taught in grades two and three in primary school. Such rules...)" Not in UK English. RGCorris (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Thunderbelch. I wonder could you explain what you were trying to do here. Your edit summary is a bit confusing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Orycteropus Hyacintho (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Neil N  talk to me 14:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Beatles discography. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr.  K.  05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hey Bulldog. Dr.  K.  05:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Martinevans123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Moody Blues have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Thunderbelch. I wonder could you explain what you were trying to do here. Your edit summary looks a little bit rude. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you please not do this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He has been doing this since at least January - see the thread above regarding US & UK English. It is beginning to look as though a posting ban may be necessary. RGCorris (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet again he refuses to listen and amends the Moody Blues article. RGCorris (talk) 09:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, on 14 July they said in the edit summary "Banish me if U wish." I'd be happy to see this raised at WP:AIV with a view to just that. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Moody Blues. ''You have been asked a number of times to stop trying to impose your own personal take of British grammar onto this article. Further edits like this will be treated as vandalism.'' Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Another attack on the Moody Blues article. Time for an editing ban. RGCorris (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant edit is this one. This is a rather basic matter of British English style, as the Moody Blues are a British band. No edit summary was given. Does User:Thunderbelch not understand this detail? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think. I think therefore I am. Therefore I am I think. Of course you are, my bright little star, I've miles and miles of files, pretty files of your forefather's fruit, and now to suit our great computer, your magnetic ink .... oh yeah, anyway, the Moody Blues is a British band, and therefore we use British English "are", not the American English "is". Please STOP IT or you will be blocked again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He has said somewhere that he is based in Australia, so why he favours US English I know not. However he refuses to co-operate and ought therefore to be banned from posting unless or until he makes a commitment to stop his vandalism. RGCorris (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't find where he may have said that. But he has certainly edited a number of Australia-related topics and the time frame fits. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism - being bull-headed about stuff and insisting your way is the only way to improve the encyclopedia can be disruptive and block-worthy, but WP:AGF says if they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing, it's not vandalism. See User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the bright shiny future, of course, geo-location will automatically render all articles into the geographically-relevant English variant. Failing that, we might have a "AmerEng" / "BritEng" button at the top of every relevant article. Or maybe this is just wishful thinking? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. Thunderbelch, do you realise you're expected to actually respond to questions and comment left here??
 * From your own essay; "Note that there can be rare exceptions to this; for example, a number of editors were repeatedly told to stop moving Sega Genesis to Sega Megadrive and eventually they declared they'd do it anyway even though they knew it was disruptive; at that point it could be considered de-facto vandalism."''  Thunderbelch has been told repeatedly to stop this, with full explanations why their edit is wrong and disruptive, but the response has been; "What a load of absolute CRAP! Banish me if U wish ... U can shove Wikipedia up Ur "R's"!".  It's practically a carbon copy of your example of "de-facto vandalism". -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "(If “Moody Blues” are a rock band, then “Moody Blues” are a (singular) name/title. Hence, why isn’t “is” appropriate, let alone be an obvious correct alternative verb? So, “Moody Blues” are a title. What a load of illogical, inappropriate and incorrect crap! Who’s determining this crap?)"
 * "(Why the hell isn’t “The United States is a country” not stated as “The United States are a country”? Please, give me a break. Or should I rephrase the question? Why the hell aren’t “The United States is a country” not stated as “The United States are a country”? To all who contact me, I have no idea of how to read your messages (or should that be ‘message’?), as I don’t know, nor care of how to access my (our should that be ‘our’?) Wikipedia account (or should that be ‘accounts’?). Have I tra...)"
 * Can some editor either put him right or ban him ? RGCorris (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He has also done the same thing on the article The Rounders (band), although as that is an American band there might be some excuse for it. RGCorris (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Moody Bleus" is now doing similar attacks on the Moody Blues article, which suggests it may be Thunderbelch using a new account. RGCorris (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes User:Moody Bleus. What a remarkably strange coinciednce. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Moody Blues. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Dr.  K.  05:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Competence is required
The overflowing edit summary from Thunderbelch here ends as follows:
 * "To all who contact me, I have no idea of how to read your messages (or should that be ‘message’?), as I don’t know, nor care of how to access my (our should that be ‘our’?) Wikipedia account (or should that be ‘accounts’?). Have I tra..."

Given there have been no responses on this page since it was created, I think there is a question over general competence. That's ignoring the ranting, in some of the edit summaries, that is somewhat uncivil. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There has been a response of sorts if you count the socking as a response. Dr.   K.  11:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)