Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit, for which you have provided no edit summary, makes no sense. The citation for episode 4 shows the title as "Killshot", not "Search and Destroy" with an airdate of October 13, 2009,[1] while the citation for episode 5 shows the title as "Search and Destroy", not "Killshot". --AussieLegend (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Are you and Xeworlebi finished warring over the format for the tables on the Castle episode pages so I can go put in the references? Please let me know when you two are finished being right, so I don't have to play a 3RR card (which you two have both serially violated) to get it stopped in order to get the references in place. I'm not even going to attempt to do them until you two grow up and knock it off. Drmargi (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Castle episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of Castle episodes. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Nice try but no dice, Rosie. TV.com is not a reliable sources for airdates, summaries or anything much in advance of an episode's broadcast (or little after) as it's entirely fan-submitted. Moreover, they DO NOT have the airdates you source to them. Even if they did, they would be unreliable as fans simply guess at airdates or source them to casting call websites, which assume airdates by production order. You have no foundation for those air dates.
You are becoming an increasingly tendentious editor. Your refusal to discuss edits or to engage in the consensus process, a core value of Wikipedia, will rapidly turn editors against you and cast you in an adversarial light. You are strongly encouraged to accept that not every edit you make will stand, you're not always right, and it's not the obligation of every editor to simple accept what you say as true, accurate and final. Your actions on the Castle episode pages have gotten the page locked, cost the page some valuable edits, and generally created a hostile environment in concert with another controlling editor. You may want step back and rethink your approach to editing, or be prepared to face the consequences. Drmargi (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please stop your tendentious edits on the White Collar page. Again, this is a warning against tendentious editing. To make an edit and declare it right is insulting and inappropriate. Please discuss and reach consensus before reverting again, or you may be blocked from editing. Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in List of The Mentalist episodes, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello 1989 Rosie. Unless you start to engage in discussions, you'll soon be blocked from editing. This place is meant to be collaborative: if two people disagree on what an article should do, the right thing to do is to stop editing, discuss and come to a consensus. Repeatedly undoing other people's work is not very friendly. Cheers, henrik•talk19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
To answer your question "Why a discussion ?" here since I have no intention in getting into an edit war with you again. Because people ask it, and Henrik says it great "the right thing to do is to stop editing, discuss and come to a consensus", but you seem to have no intention to "do the right ting". The reason for change and repeated reversal on the List of V (2009 TV series) episodes is beyond me as you are breaking links toward the page =m which I have stated yet you keep ignoring it. Xeworlebi(t•c)21:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, engaging in discussion is the only way that you'll be able to make your changes stick in wikipedia (or be able to continue editing at all). Please acknowledge this before resuming editing. I've blocked for from editing for a day so that you can learn more about how we do things here before disrupting further. Please read The basic principles of wikipedia, especially the fourth point. henrik•talk21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Rosie, you're right back to your same editing practices. You have been asked repeatedly not to revert edits on the episode pages for Castle and White Collar, and refuse to do so. You've just had one block for disruptive editing, and are right back at it. Please stop, recognize that your way is not the only way to edit, and engage in consensus building. Drmargi (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Rosie, why a discussion? Because we have a process that settles disagreements by discussion. Your constant reverting of other editors' edits without discussion does nothing but cause problems and edit wars. You've been blocked for failing to do this once. You're on your way to another block for the same reason. When we disagree, we STOP EDITING and START TALKING. There are THREE editors on the Castle page who do not agree with your edits, and yet you refuse to discuss them in order to reach consensus we can all live with. That's not how it's done here. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Drmargi (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would be happy to unblock (or have any admin unblock), if you acknowledge that you understand the problem and promise to stop. If people disagree, you stop editing and start discussing. henrik•talk14:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
WP:Other stuff exists is a flimsy argument at best, and not at all a reason to revert others edits. And yes, when you make a change to the page and someone reverts it and asks for a discussion, you should engage in the discussion. Besides that, and don't take this as an offense, you seem to not be all that well versed in English, there are some 260 different versions of wikipedia, I'm sure there's one in your native language. It's not forbidden to edit on a non-well-versed-in-the-language version of wikipedia, but it makes discussing really difficult, and I feel it is a reason why you don't. Xeworlebi(t•c)14:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Regarding your request to be unblocked, the reason for the block is not about putting TBA or N/A. You were blocked on both occasions because your editing was disruptive. If you change something in an article and somebody reverts your edit, you don't just revert that edit without any explanation as you did, for example, at List of White Collar episodes.[2] You need to explain why you made the change. If somebody then reverts again, you need to discuss the changes. Simply reverting again,[3] is edit warring and is inappropriate. Not all revisions to articles require discussion, but if you don't use edit summaries to explain your edits, or your changes are opposed more than once, then you do need to discuss them. If you aren't willing to discuss the changes, then you shouldn't continue making them.
For the record, I believe that your change to "TBA" was entirely appropriate, as was this edit to List of Castle episodes. This later edit to the same article was not. You needed to explain your reasons for the change. Many of your edits have been valid, but if you aren't willing or able to discuss "problem" edits, you're only going to continue to be blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you need to sometimes discuss things with editors. You certainly need to acknowledge that you understand this, as was previously requested, or you're going to remain blocked.[4] It's up to you. You can't simply continue to ignore requests to discuss issues that other editors have with your edits. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
{{Unblock|I´m understand my erorr and please unblocked me?}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Rosie, you're just off your block and already adding data to episode lists and using sources that do not contain the data you've added. There's no rush to add these data: please be patient and wait for accurate sources. Futon Critic is estimating dates for episodes with no corresponding titles; neither USA nor ABC announces air dates and titles more than two weeks in advance as a rule. Drmargi (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
You've been unbanned for, what, some four hours, and are back at it. Adding wrong info with references that do no contain the info you try to back up with them and using unreliable sources on Castle and White collar pages like Drmargi said above. Changing the List of V (2009 TV series) episodes, by changing section headers you break links that point towards it, which I stated before and now again, twice. And again, you just revert it without explanation. Please stop it. There is no reason for the change and in the process you disrupt links that point toward the section. You say you understand your error, your behavior makes it seem you don't, or you just don't care. From the little German I know I understand you were banned first 6 hours then 3 days and lastly 1 month before being banned indefinitely for the same reason on the German wikipedia. Midst the temporary bans you decided to come to the English wikipedia and continue the same behavior that was not tolerated there and resulted you in being banned indefinitely. Xeworlebi(t•c)22:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just a reminder, Rosie, that airdates must have sources. Futon Critic estimates airdates, but actual dates are only announced two weeks in advance by the networks most of the time. Also, DO NOT remove the Episode List heading on episode pages. It's there for a reason. Drmargi (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Rosie, please keep it polite! You've left two edit summaries recently here and here that have been angry and confrontational, in the second case, used inappropriate language. Please remember, too, that all your edits should have summaries.
I've also removed your edit regarding the second season of Jonas, which is sourced with a German-language source. This is an English-language encyclopedia, and sources should be in English. Drmargi (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of V (2009 TV series) episodes, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop this, there is no reason for your changes and you keep breaking links. You moved from disrupting just the page you edit on to other pages without even editing them. Trying to push your unhelpful edits through by making them one by one with some pauses between is not the way to go. If you have any reasons for your unexplained edits and changes witch disrupt other pages then, please, provide them. Xeworlebi(t•c)23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Drmargi (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Rosie please stop changing Season 1 (2009–2010) to Season 1: 2009–2010. You break links towards this section, two of them are even on the same page. There is no reason for the change as Season 1 (2009–2010) is a perfectly acceptable way and is what is used to link to that section. By changing this you disrupt other pages that use that section name to link to it. Xeworlebi(t•c)16:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Neighbours, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JuneGloom07 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please explain to me why you reverted my contribution on this article. I understand there are two episodes counted as one episode each, but are broadcast sometimes as separated episodes. Sometimes divided in more than two episodes. But isn't it a bit confusing for people seeing in the list that there are 20 episodes of season 2 and in the overview it says 24? WillH (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I understand your explanation. iDate a Bad Boy is indeed counted as 1 episode, but iFight Shelby Marx is also counted as 1 episode (although it's explained that it may be shown as two parts or just one). iGo to Japan is seen as a movie (also by the producers) and not counted (also not on the list) as 3 episodes. So this still makes 20 episodes for season 2 and nót 24. WillH (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do not revert other editors without providing an explanation of why. In this edit, I corrected an error you had made: "within" is one word, meaning "inside". In this edit, you put the mistake back in without explanation. Explain edits when you make them, and don't revert other editors without explanation.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Rosie, you don't get to arbitrarily change tables that have been in place for five years on the article for "The Closer" and declare them "shit." Your edits are not civil, and must be discussed. In changing the DVD table to add needless season information that's already in the tables below it, you also removed a number of very important notes regarding the original broadcast of episodes, and removed formatting that makes the table more readable. You need to discuss changes and wait for consensus before any further revisions. Drmargi (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
You're STILL refusing to discuss the changes you're making, and removing important information regarding the show. I'm going to have to treat this as vandalism if you don't stop. You MUST discuss once you're asked to. Let's not have an edit war over this, Rosie! Drmargi (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Please do not include "TBA" information in articles. Wikipedia articles should make no effort to predict the future. WP:CRYSTAL is the policy page. In this particular case, there is no source available which tells when the Disney channel will begin airing season 2 episodes, and none of the other information is available. I removed the table because it presented no confirmed information.
On a general note, you really need to get out of the habit of edit warring. Editing time doesn't provide special privileges, but take look at the difference between your experience level and mine. If I remove material from an article, I generally have a pretty sound basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't understand why I have done so, place a message on my talk page asking for a better explanation.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is a warning about predicting the future at the beginning of this section which you have apparently chosen to ignore. WP:CRYSTAL states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." The information that you've added here is not verifiable. You have provided no citations in support of your changes and there are no episodes currently scheduled for 2010. This means that your claim that the season will extend into 2010 is a prediction of future events. It is uncited and therefore is both WP:CRYSTAL and original research. Without a citation it should not be added again.
Not long ago you were warned about, and blocked for, persistent edit-warring. You were unblocked because you (finally) indicated that you understood the requirement to discuss changes on the talk page, rather than simply reverting as you've been doing today. If you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked again, and this time it may be permanent. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The recent edit you made to List of Trauma episodes has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Xeworlebi(t•c)18:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to List of Big Time Rush episodes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please try reading, and complying with, the Manual of Style sometime. While four digit date ranges (eg 2009-2010) are acceptable, year ranges are normally written as two digits (2009-10) as indicated in WP:YEAR. This is the preferred method so it is what we should use. I know that you've been warned about this before. The hidden comments that were added to the article, and which you deleted, were added for a reason. Please do not delete them as they serve to answer questions that people often ask. ie why there are two episode columsn. By deleting them you're making it harder for everyone. And, as you have often been asked to do, please use meaningful and accurate edit summaries.AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series), you will be blocked from editing. The edit you persist on making includes both unsourced information and corrupts a table (entering a series of "1s" without any column header or explanation). My edit summary was clear, and you have been warned not to blindly revert without explanation. I can only conclude that you are intentionally disrupting the article.—Kww(talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to List of Sonny With a Chance episodes, you will be blocked from editing. You have once again reintroduced a large amount of improperly sourced information, reverting another editors changes without providing any explanation. You have been warned multiple times by multiple editors to stop doing this. It must stop now.—Kww(talk) 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We've had this discussion before, but I guess we have to have it again. Don't revert other editors so quickly or so often. In this particular case, there is no reason to believe that ABC will ever announce an airdate. There's no reason to believe anyone will ever announce an airdate. There's no reason to believe the episodes will ever be aired at all. Thus, the status is not "TBA", because that is predicting that an announcement will occur. Wikipedia does not attempt to predict the future. The episodes are simply "unaired". If someone ever announces a plan to air them at all, then changing the airdate to "TBA" may be appropriate at that time.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems to me that your main purpose on Wikipedia is to revert the edits of others, almost as if you "own" these pages. While I do not necessarily agree with your revert of my wording change to List of Sonny With a Chance episodes (within 5 minutes of my edit!!), I am not about to start an edit war with you. Actors "appear" in movies and TV shows. They are not "present". The use of "present" and "absent" sounds like you are talking about middle school attendence, and I can assure you that you won't see those words used in entertainment magazines. (Is Taylor Lautner present in the Twilight movies? No, he appears in them.) It sounds much more professional. But like I said, I'm not starting a war with you. Clearly you love to edit war. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have been unable to find a source for the debut of "10 Things" in the Netherlands for the "International Release" chart on the 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series) page. Since you have reverted edits involving the removal of this unsourced info several times, I am assuming you have a source. Can you please include it on the page? I have done a lot of searching, but cannot come across a reference. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Don't label edits as "typo" unless you are actually correcting typographical errors. This, this, and this did not correct typographical errors: they changed the formatting and content of the articles in question. This edit misformatted the date in question: as Eliza Taylor-Cotter is Australian, the correct format for her birthdate is "24 October 1989", per MOS:DATE#Strong national ties to a topic.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Reflist|2 formats the reference list into two columns for every browser but Internet Explorer. That doesn't really matter. If you didn't think it made a difference, you should not have reverted my edits. I'll say this as clearly and directly as I can: Stop reverting other editor's edits. Most of your undos are incorrect and constitute edit-warring.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
since I can't edit this page since it is protected. Can you change this to th correct episodes. isaved your life is 232 and iSpace out is 239. they have them wrong. Also for the episode iDate a bad boy can you add the production code 225 with it as well and updatethe main page 58 episodes to 59 episodes. Here's the link to confirm this, http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=26,0&Search%5FArg=iCarly&Search%5FCode=TALL&CNT=25&PID=Lsj8AJf9CXakY8tNFUJeOuFvg7NUF&SEQ=20091206174518&SID=2
add it as the refference. I guess dan just took iGot cought and combined it. Might not be the excat title. Also remove this refference from the episode # only counted as one episode not two. then add this Note: This can be shown as a Two part episode or a Special with all parts together at the bottom of the episode summary. thanks big time. if you don't have time to change this I will after My four days up to be auto confirmed.The Master of disguises (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Your contribution history shows a lot of edit summaries of the "Undid revision XXX by user ABC ..." variety (i.e., this, this and this. Plus you've been blocked for this several times in the last three months. And unblocked twice. I can assure that I'm not unblocking now, and I doubt any other admin will want to either. I can also guarantee you that, if you return to this disruptive behavior after this block expires, the next block will be indefinite, which in your case will be permanent. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
One final time. I can promise you that the next time you get blocked, it will be for much longer than a week, so it would be a good idea to listen. Do not revert other editors without providing an edit summary. I'll say that one more time: Do not revert other editors without providing an edit summary. Reverting without an edit summary indicates that the edit you are reverting is vandalism. Very few of the reverts you make are of vandalism, most of them are stylistic. In some cases, such as this one, you are reverting error corrections. Reverting error corrections is never a good idea, and reverting them without an edit summary is even worse.
Please, lay off the "undo" button, and if you use it, write an edit summary explaining why you used it. If you don't get better, you will be blocked for edit-warring again, and it's likely to be permanent the next time.—Kww(talk) 16:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Castle episodes. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Three Rivers (TV series). Alansohn (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your tendentious edits on the White Collar page. Again, this is a warning against tendentious editing. To make an edit and declare it right is insulting and inappropriate. Please discuss and reach consensus before reverting again, or you may be blocked from editing. Drmargi (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page List of Modern Family episodes has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
