User talk:Djdijdijkidiso

May 2024

Hello, I'm Rahio1234. I noticed that you recently removed content from Cape Verde without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Rahio 1234 14:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cape Verde. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Cape Verde was changed by Djdijdijkidiso (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882745 on 2024-05-29T14:58:38+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Cape Verde, you may be blocked from editing. Rahio 1234 15:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NICE TRY ILL UNBAN MYSELF YOUR BANS DONT WORK Djdijdijkidiso (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Cape Verde. Rahio 1234 15:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Cape Verde shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Rahio 1234 15:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —Small jim 15:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]