User talk:Cesaree01

Cesaree01, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cesaree01! 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 Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that you made a significant number of edits in short order, each tagged minor but not meeting th definition of a minor edit, each one linking the work of the same academic author. This gives a very strong impression of reference spamming. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Cesaree01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you very much for the notice. Honestly I had thought that it might be useful to update the related entries in light of the references which have recently been published and also indexed in well respected academic indexes including the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. However, I totally agree with the user that besides the scientific quality and accuracy of these references, citing the same reference many times may wrongly be evaluated as a disruptive editing. Furthermore, I was not aware of the fact that including a new sentence with a new reference was not considered "minor revision." In any way, I agree with the comment, and confirm that I will be more careful in any future edits if my account will not remain unblocked forever.Cesaree01 (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked conditionally as per the below discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Based on the above, I'm inclined to unblock as per WP:LASTCHANCE based on the above, so long as Cesaree01 agrees not to cite this particular reference going forward or any other reference in a way that resembles reference spamming. Would you mind providing your thoughts on unblocking under those restrictions? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provided this user does not resume linking the work of Halil Tekiner, that should be OK. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our policy on conditional unblocks, I'm willing to unblock you if you agree to the following restrictions:

You are topic banned from citing any reference which includes "Halil Tekiner" as an author or otherwise invested party (supervisor, etc.) in the mainspace. You are permitted to suggest such references on article talk pages, so long as you do not do so disruptively or in high volumes.
You acknowledge that any future edits that give the appearance of reference spamming will result in an indefinite block.

These restrictions may be lifted at any administrator's discretion after six months without any violations. Do you agree to these restrictions? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I definetely agree to these restrictions. [[User:Cesaree01|Cesaree01]] ([[User talk:Cesaree01#top|talk]]) 18:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)}}.

I de-wikified your unblocked request becaouse you are not allowed to make two requests at the same time. Pinging BU Rob13. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]