User talk:Yghtfjgyurffr

June 2019
Hello, I'm LauritzT. I noticed that you recently removed content from George VI without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. 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. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 06:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page George VI has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George VI. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at George VI, you may be blocked from editing. That dot was supposed to be there. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. El_C 07:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)