K.slauter

B&Q

Additions to articles need to be put into context, WP is not just a collection of random facts about subjects. Please stop adding frivilous legal cases to the above article, WP is not a news site. raseaC^{talk to me} 19:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:B&Q. raseaC^{talk to me} 20:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take part in the discussion I have tried to start on Talk:B&Q. I believe I have valid reasons to revert your edits but may be wrong and am entirely open to discussion. Simply reverting my edits without discussion is unacceptable and I will involve other editors if necessary. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

B&Q & undue weight

The information you are adding to the article seems to be giving undue weight, as well as not being written in an encyclopedic way. I invite you to use the talk page to discuss why you feel the content is notable enough to be included in the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Talk:B&Q worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at B&Q. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

B&Q

I invite you to please use B&Q article's talk page to discuss the information you are trying to insert into the article. The information is not written in an encyclopedic matter (it is written like a news headline) and I am concerned that it falls under WP:Undue weight (sources), as there is no coverage outside of your source. Please visit the talk page and discuss the information before inserting it into the article. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

B&Q

Hi, I made a grammatical correction, removed 'Kingfisher' from the end of 'B&Q' because 'B&Q Kingfisher' does not exist (I checked Companies House) and grouped the two racism incidents together as I believe this is the correct layout. Please let me know why you reverted these changes. raseaC^{talk to me} 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please explain why you are reverting my edits to B&Q. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

December 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to B&Q. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Halsteadk (talk) 11:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at B&Q shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Halsteadk (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing, including edit warring, editing against clear consensus, and using Wikipedia in a concerted campaign to promote a particular point of view. For the moment this block has been set to last for one month, so as to give you a chance to return and edit constructively if you wish to. However, your past history suggests that you have no intention of doing any other sort of editing, and you should be aware that continuing in the same way may lead to an indefinite block, without any further warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on B&Q. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. 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. Mtking ^(edits) 01:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is B&Q. Thank you. Mtking ^(edits) 01:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bnqinsider for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the same abuse of Wikipedia to carry out a campaign against a business that you were warned about at the time of your block. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)