User talk:Sebebineydiki

January 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ardabil 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: Ardabil was changed by Sebebineydiki (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852385 on 2017-01-13T05:00:34+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Dolma. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dolma, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Dolma was changed by Sebebineydiki (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.954475 on 2017-01-13T06:02:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sebebineydiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sebebineydiki! 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 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Urmia.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Urmia was changed by Sebebineydiki (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.904575 on 2017-01-14T04:03:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tabriz. Materialscientist (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 11:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to East Azerbaijan Province 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: East Azerbaijan Province was changed by Sebebineydiki (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.94998 on 2017-02-01T06:37:54+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Azerbaijanis 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. William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Azerbaijanis. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:31, 2 April 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) 18:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reported

See here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you respond and offer to stop warring, it is likely you will be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 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 ~~~~}}.

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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]