User talk:Pupp3t1

November 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Genghis Khan 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: Genghis Khan was changed by Pupp3t1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.901462 on 2013-11-10T21:49:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:GregorB 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.  Eye snore  (pc) 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Eyesnore with this edit, you may be blocked from editing.  Eye snore  (pc) 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
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. Technopat (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello, if you continue more disruptive edits, this time by spamming articles with links to the infamous rickroll video, I think you should be blocked again. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. 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. Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)