User talk:Madyas

Madyas, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Madyas! 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! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at User talk:EdJohnston[edit]

Please see User talk:EdJohnston#User:Mehmeett21's massive sock puppetry where an IP editor has complained you are a sock of User:Mehmeett21. Though I'm unfamiliar with Mehmeett21, I do see you making large number of changes, inserting 'Turkic' to articles. If you aren't willing to stop and discuss your changes, I can foresee that admins will become concerned and may take action against you. There is a related RfC at Talk:List of Turkic dynasties and countries#RfC on disputed listings. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not sock puppet, but 188.158.116.74 IP is a vandal and maybe Toghuchar's sock puppet. Madyas (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madyas, please try to give a better answer. I'm an admin who knows very little about you (except for your widespread insertions of 'Turkic') but I might guess you are here for some nationalist reason, perhaps to spread the glory of the Turks, and not here to improve the encyclopedia. For an account that is two days old you are already very active and (it seems) stubborn and not eager to communicate. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am just interesting Turkish History. Madyas (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJonston, he is right, you can not know what is known in Turkey or other Turkic countries, so please be silent and get out of the page. Sock huh? What an admin. The task is over, now go on another freaking way, racist anti-Turkist puppet. O işe yaramaz yaprak kafanı da al git Avrupa soysuzu acınası küçük insan, delleniyorum bunlara ya, kardeşim Madyas, biz Vikipedi'de bir böyle İngilizce editler yapan, ama kaynak göstererek editler yapan bir ekip kurmak istiyoruz, henüz hayata geçirmedik, umarım senin de aklında vardır böyle bir şey, bence yapabiliriz, ne dersin? KARA (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farabi[edit]

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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Khanate of Sibir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing at multiple historical articles. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I made contributions is not false. Someone undoing my contributions and this is vandalism. Must be blocked persons is they were. Why blocking they were? Madyas (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on your unblock request, I have concerns about your English language proficiency. PhilKnight (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for continued disruptive editing and apparent sockpuppetry. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand why I was blocked. Madyas (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for "continued disruptive editing, likely sockpuppet". PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am not sockpuppet. Do you have any proof? Madyas (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Proof is not required; see WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.