User talk:Welovevenkys

Welovevenkys, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi Welovevenkys!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Burnley F.C., but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Burnley F.C., without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yamaguchi, Mattythewhite,

I hope I have cited my additions well right now and that you agree with it. Apologies for the caused indistinctness.

With kind regards,

Welovevenkys

20:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers[edit]

Hello, I'm Dcroberts91. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Blackburn Rovers has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thanks. Dcroberts91 (talk) 16:54, 03 July 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemanager91 (talk • contribs)

Blackburn Rovers[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Blackburn Rovers., you may be blocked from editing. Pagemanager91 (talk) 17:24, 03 July 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagemanager91 (talk • contribs)

July 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Blackburn Rovers F.C. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. [stwalkerster|talk] 16:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for edit warring--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC). 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[reply]

August 2016[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Burnley F.C.. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You really need to engage with other editors and take your issues to the talk page. Several editors have reverted your version, you cannot keep just reverting them without engagement. You are essentially engaged in an edit war. Fenix down (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation[edit]

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, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Welovevenkys. Thank you. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]