User talk:Innkin

September 2016

Hello, I'm Uncle Milty. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Spring (season) 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 the 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. | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Theology, 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. - DVdm (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Liberalism, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Aristocracy, Oligarchy and Classical liberalism ‎ . - DVdm (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of "Property qualifications for voting"

Property qualifications for voting, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organization, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content, or remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. You can contest the deletion by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the speedy deletion tag. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. DVdm (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Innkin, you may note that almost every single edit you have made so far has been reverted by various editors. This is because your additions seem to be universally unsourced, misleading, or representative of a non-neutral point of view. Please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (particularly WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY). At the moment, you are merely creating cleanup work for others, which may soon verge into WP:Disruptive editing and somewhere down the line lead to you being blocked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Value theory to Good (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Potential superpowers— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. m.o.p 05:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]