User talk:Kingfrogger666

Clean-up on Clare Devine
When you restore material that has been blanked you should be warning the editor involved, even if the editor is anonymous. Use either Uw-delete1 and its siblings or Uw-vandalism1 and its siblings. You may also want to try using a tool such as Wikipedia:Twinkle, Wikipedia:Dazzle! or Huggle. It makes the process simpler. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

...and when you add stuff to Wikipedia, you should use 'references. Heard of those? It's quite a big thing around here. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. Both WP:V and WP:RS suggest that material that is likely to be questioned should be referenced, but in relation to material such as this (a fictional character) simply tagging the material is adequate. No one is going to sue Wikipedia over incorrect information unlike WP:BLP issues, unreferenced violations against that are to be removed immediately. The section that is in question has been tagged as requiring additional references.
 * On the other hand, we don't WP:EDITWAR over content, we discuss and come to a WP:CONSENSUS. If the article isn't locked, tag contentions material using  and completing the reason, then discuss larger issues on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please leave the Clare Devine article alone for now. The anon should be blocked soon and then you can improve the article. You may find yourself blocked as well if you continue to edit like this. You should be supporting statements with references however that can't be done when the material you're trying to reference is being deleted while you're trying to edit it. Even anonymous editors in Manchester must sleep. If the anon is not blocked, you may find a period where the anon is not editing the article. While you're waiting for an opportunity to improve the article, please find some references for the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly. Do stop editing that page. see WP:SHOOT. You reported anon's behaviour as have I. Now you need to behave yourself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey
Hello mate. Can you find some info for Tegan that new character in Oaks atm. I just added Grace to the list. Who do you wanna work on next? Rain  the 1  21:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the Jason bit by mistake, sorry! Only just realised. Sandy needs an update too! she is such a good character, so we need to keep her updated more, right? Rain  the 1  21:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, did what I could with Tegan JV 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well there are some sources out there for her. The one used for Leela is a start. And you obviously are watching Oaks atm, so you know which storylines to add. I missed it tonight, so I am of no help tonight. Up to you atm though. Otherwise we will fall behind in the Oaks list 2013 - and we need to keep it updated don't we. Rain  the 1  22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of Hollyoaks characters (2013), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history at War Doctor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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.

Please see the talk page for the article and join the discussion, but do not edit war. --Drmargi (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Be careful, you seem to be walking on eggshells at present, I would advise talking to the editors on the talk page. Mat  ty  .  007  19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you go over the 3RR, it is quite likely that you will be blocked. Mat  ty  .  007  19:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the Twelfth Doctor et al
Please do not make changes against the consensus of WikiProject Doctor Who. You have violated the Three Revert Rule on at least one of the articles and this can lead to your account being blocked. If you wish to contribute please do so via the talk pages. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mat ty. 007 19:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. MarnetteD | Talk 20:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tenth Doctor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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 adding the following text below this notice:. 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. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)