User talk:Rekonedth

Regarding my recent editing about Italian fiscal code card
Hello, I've recently edit Italian Fiscal code page in section External Links but I see you have undone my changes because there were "no changes". Actually I made updates to the section: So I think that the changes were good and helped to improve the external links section. Regards, Phate76 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I deleted 2 links to websites that are currently offline (miocodicefiscale.com and calcolocodicefiscale.online) and added a link to an active website (codicefiscale.it)
 * I deleted 3 links to the tax office old web site agenziaentrate.it (new address agenziaentrate.gov.it) because they were linked to old pages and they redirect to the home page
 * I added a link to the tax office web site (in English) that explain how it works the tax identification number for foreign citizens
 * I see that you completely deleted the External Links Section from the page: you say that Wikipedia is not "a farm of External links" but those links where there before my update, I just updated them (they where pointing to offline websites); you say that those websites are "classified as spam": what are you talking about? The real spam websites were those linked before my update; you say that agenziaentrate.gov.it is "not a mandatory official website" but in the Italian Agency of Revenue page it is reported as official website. So I don't think you did a good job deleting my update. Regards, Phate76 (talk) 10:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Bangladesh
I am working, slowly, on History of Bangladesh with scholarly sources. I am unsure why your edit summary claims that the content I am developing on prehistoric Bengal is unsourced. It is solidly sourced to authoritative historians. Granted, the pace of the expansion from the sources is slow which is why I have put up an in use template. Please self-revert. TurboCop (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Rekonedth (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TurboCop (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Huggle reverts
Hi. Recently, you reverted these good faith edits using rollback with any explanation. Such action is considered as abuse of rollback which may lead to the revocation of the tool. If you wish to revert a good faith edit, you may press 'Y' on your keyboard and insert the explanation. Please also revise WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Thanks. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 06:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I reverted the edits because it was unsourced, and definite term was officially known by "The" at the front. It was not provided via the reliable sources. So, was just skeptical about it. Maybe he could at least provide the website's name, for this, the source could be given, now the source is provided; nothing to worry. That's why the rollback occurred. Thanks. Rekonedth (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for socking
I have blocked you for two weeks for extensive, often disruptive or for an improper purpose, editing while logged out. If you edit again while logged out, particularly during the next two weeks, you risk being blocked indefinitely. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Your block evasion has been non-stop. I've increased the block to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)