User talk:Kinker020

Welcome!

Hello, Kinker020, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Theobald Tiger (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm. Thank you. W C M_email 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You (Kinkee020) just reverted and said "‎(Undid revision 605968205 by TheCockroach (talk) As you can see on the talk page, Vdullemen, 113.28.12.161, Bmwz3hm and I find the original version better.)" Problem: you are suspected of being a sockpuppet of those accounts. On the other hand, the users that clearly agree with the position I agree with, Bjelleklang and Theobald Tiger, are definitely legitimate, non-sock puppet accounts. --TheCockroach (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC) --TheCockroach (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Heleen Mees, you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 01:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Heleen Mees shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—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. AussieLegend (✉) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've now breached the three-revert rule and will be blocked. Persistently reverting the article to your preferred version is edit-warring and will result in you being blocked from editing altogether. Your version will NOT remain in the article so it's a rather pointless exercise. If the article is protected, as is likely, once your block has expired you will still not be able to edit the article so all you are achieving through your actions is to ensure that your preferred version of the article will not be the active version. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Heleen Mees. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bilby (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestions

Hi. I have no problem considering your recent suggestions, and I'm currently seeing what I can do with them. However, it would be best if you didn't use alternative accounts to evade restrictions. - Bilby (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]