User talk:Asteriset

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Battle of Ain Jalut 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: Battle of Ain Jalut was changed by Asteriset (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.892933 on 2017-08-24T13:45:57+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asteriset, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Asteriset! 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 experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Battle of Elbistan. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mongol invasion of Europe, you may be blocked from editing. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Battle of Mohi. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These pages are mostly unsourced or worse by non academic or even remotely serious like forums Allempire.com, added data from McLynn.

3RR on Battle of Legnica

Your recent editing history at Battle of Legnica 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—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.

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. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have broken WP:3RR at Battle of Legnica. Unless you reply at the complaint and agree to wait for consensus, you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at the Battle of Legnica

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

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—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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I see this behavior again, you'll be receiving an indefinite block faster than you can hit undo. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asteriset. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]