User talk:Sonici

Welcome!

Hello, Sonici, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Ashkenazi Jews have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Ashkenazi Jews 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: Ashkenazi Jews was changed by Sonici (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.936333 on 2013-06-09T12:32:18+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Saladin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Saladin was changed by Sonici (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951975 on 2013-06-09T12:32:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonici, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Sonici! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing cited sources

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Turkic peoples, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Zyma (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at your edit at [1] and there is no way you could have obtained your figure of around 40,000,000 from the source. I've reverted you and added a later source. I don't understand why you changed the figure at Altay (tank) and I see you've been reverted there. As for your other edits, again you have been changing cited sources evidently to push your point of view. This is not acceptable - changing cited text in this way makes the article misrepresent the sources. You need to read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NPOV if you wish your edits to remain in the articles you edit. It's possible that it hasn't occurred to you that the text should match the sources, although I'd find that odd, and your blanking of articles could easily have led to your being blocked just for that. I don't want to block you, but if your edits continue their current pattern I will. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Turkic peoples, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. The YouTube video clearly says 'Fox', and since it was not on the official Fox channel, is a copyright violation. It also isn't a source we can use to change the figures from more reliable sources Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Turkic peoples. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Favonian (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Sarikamish may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|casualties1=~+60,000(+38.000 died, 12.000 sick]<ref name="caven"/>)
|casualties2=~+23,000(+16.970 died, 7.000 sick]<ref name="order60"/>)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wusun, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Zyma (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kemenche may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Cello'' (2002), p. 106.</ref> The name ''Kemençe'' derives from the [Gagausian Language|Gagaus]] [[Kamancheh=Cumanchah]]. A Cuman origin musical instrument<ref>{{cite journal|title=Middle East

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ayyubid dynasty may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

were enacted against the non-Muslim population. With the advent of the Syrian expeditionary force (consisting of [[Oghuz Turks] into Egypt, waves of maltreatment of minorities occurred, irrespective of religion.<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from disruptive editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Battle of Kulikovo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you.--¿3family6 _contribs 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Turkic peoples, you may be blocked from editing. --Toddy1 (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over multiple articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You appear to be editwarring and removing referenced information. I would strongly suggest you self revert and start discussions on the appropriate talk pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Huns. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-- Jingiby (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huns

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm Richard Keatinge. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ellac without 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; I restored the removed content. 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! Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 weeks for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Dougweller (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Third Army (Ottoman Empire) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

the Army consisted of 75,660 troops in the following units and commanders:<ref name=caven>{{cite book

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sonici reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ). Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incessant edit-warring in spite of several blocks. Apparently, you're just not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]