User talk:Alif Dayabi

October 2016
Hello, I'm Kleuske. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Kleeuske, I Do but im not a RV Sock. Bilcat is Lier. Im Not a Spanning around with this stupid guy.Alif Dayabi (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIR. Kleuske (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Kleuske, The Only Main Reason now that i do not need on my Nonsences Equipment but now im not a guy who were very Vandalism anymore. Im The Man who will Edit the Pictures and Error Only. Please. I Don't like a Exposing like Bilcat.Alif Dayabi (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ¿Que? Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What Que?. I Want you to Protect me and I No more A Lier. Please.Alif Dayabi (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "¿Que?" because I haven't the foggiest idea what you're going on about. I am not here to protect you. I am here to protect the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Do You Know, I Been Looked a Dumb but you not. Please, You are a Good User but Now Please Stop Them Before i beeing banned.Alif Dayabi (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Equipment of the Pakistan Army 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kleuske (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * All Right, I Stop it and You Right. Im Been SO Selfish what I did and Please. I Will Stop and i will not reapeted again. You Are A Good Person.Alif Dayabi (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DRAGON BOOSTER. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Equipment of the Pakistan Army, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★  09:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Equipment of the Pakistan Army 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 article's 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Additional note: Do NOT accuse me or other editors of being socks, as you have done in the edit summaries of your latest edits, it is seen as beeing a personal attack, and is a blockable offense! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fonte de regaz, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make a personal attack, as you did with this edit to User talk:Alif Dayabi. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jim1138 (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)