User talk:Proffesortogtok

September 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Romanianization 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: Romanianization was changed by Proffesortogtok (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950196 on 2013-09-26T13:18:46+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Romanianization with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. (t) Josve05a  (c)  13:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Romanianization with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Romanianization. (t) Josve05a  (c)  13:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, attempting to impose a point of view on an article, and making no attempt to collaborate, reply to concerns, or discuss the reasons for your edits with other editors. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)