User talk:IceColdKillerz103

Your recent editing history at List of Person of Interest episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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. .

When we describe the viewership, we identify the unit of measurement in the singular, just as we say an episode was seen by x.y million viewers. You have been reverted by two editors. If you disagree, the burden is on you to open a discussion on the talk page. --Drmargi (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you reign in your temper, and stop calling people names (see WP:NPA) or giving them orders. This is a collaborative process, and other editors can, and will, revert your edits, particularly when they are erroneous or when the need for them is unclear. --Drmargi (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Suits episodes

added a link pointing to Kevin Bray

NYPD Blue (season 6)

added a link pointing to Robert Doherty

Without a Trace (season 2)

added a link pointing to John Peters

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  PhilKnight (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IceCold, I'm genuinely sorry for your block. I've asked the blocking admin, to explain why he found it necessary to block you over 20 minutes after you'd stopped reverting and left your message on my talk page, but thus far, he's failed to respond, despite having addressed messages further down his talk page. Administrators are supposed to be accountable for their actions, but this one seemingly doesn't care to be. Once you're back, I'm always happy to help you understand policy and negotiate procedure. We've all made mistakes like this, and been blocked by a block-happy admin. --Drmargi (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, a large part of the answer is the gap between the block and the edit warring was only 20 minutes. If IceCold shows an understanding of why they've been blocked, and especially a willingness not to edit war or personalize disputes, then s/he could be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the 20 minutes. Read what's on my talk page; he'd already done what you ask before you blocked him. I'm no fan of sparky, disruptive editors like this when they keep grinding, but as soon as I put the warning on his talk page, he stopped, he thanked me for doing it, and he apologized. It's unusual for me to stand up for an editor and to an admin like this, and I don't want to turn this into a big deal, but it still looks like a punitive block that should be lifted to me. This guy's got potential to be a good editor; his actions after the warning show me that. I hope you can see that and lift the block without the usual procedural rigamarole this editor probably barely understands, if at all. --Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IceCold, nice see you back after your block. I went to bat for you, but the block-happy admin wouldn't admit his error and unblock. Too bad.

Listen, about the links to the IMDB... it's great you're contributing, but those links aren't what's meant by improving links. Links attached to names are to internal sources (articles) only, not to external sources, and especially the IMDB, which is very unreliable (fan submitted, no fact checking). You're going to need to go back and remove all of the links to the IMDB that you just put in, and not add any more. I know it's a pain, but thems the rules. --Drmargi (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And related... I noticed you've been changing directors' names to a "preferred" (per your edit summary on Rizzoli & Isles) version rather than the credited version. You need to revert all the changes that do not comport with the screen credits (I changed three on Person of Interest, for example.) On ER, Felix Alcala was always credited with his middle name. Unless you are dead certain there's an error in an article, you must use the name credited on screen. Your preferences are immaterial; this is an encyclopedia, not a fan page. Let's get 'em right.

On the other hand, if you have found an error (and you did catch on on Person of Interest), you need to include an edit summary explaining why the change and the source for your change (ie. DVD, broadcast or whatever you might use.) You probably need to spend some time reading the WP:MOSTV so you're up to date on editorial style for TV articles. --Drmargi (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You deserve this for being so accepting of feedback, and so willing to learn. You're on your way to being a great editor! Drmargi (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of NCIS episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dennis Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:TVOVERVIEW before restoring or adding DVD and blu-ray releases to series overview tables, as you did at some articles.[1][2][3] WP:TVOVERVIEW specifically says "Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables". Per WP:TVOVERVIEW, which was created after consensus was reached, such information should be removed from series overview tables. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't get it from the edit summaries, {{imdbname}} is for use only within the external links section of an article. It is not for use within the prose section of an article, per previous discussions and template instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your recent editing history over at Revenge (season 4) is considered disruptive and vandalizing, and could lead to accusations of edit warring. Which may result in blocking or even being banned from further editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to start up a dialogue on the talk page to discuss your opinions and points of view. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of NYPD Blue episodes page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NYPD Blue (season 8), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Tracy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 1), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Did you really think I was just going to take your word for it? Davejohnsan (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. In lieu of editing against WP:TVOVERVIEW. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of Terra Nova episodes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Please check WP:TVOVERVIEW before restoring or adding DVD and Blu-ray releases to series overview tables. However if you continue reverting without considering those Wikipedia policies, you'll eventually violate WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR and face a potential block on your account. -- Artmanha (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NYPDBlue S1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time to dial it down the angry edit summaries, and never, under any circumstances, is it appropriate for you to tell an editor that they have no right to make an edit. You and your buddy Alex the Whovian have disrupted a fair few TV articles by changing the directors' names from the credited version. We always list the director as credited; if it breaks a link, pipe the name, don't revert it to the article name or your name of preference. You've been blocked once for disruptive editing. Don't set yourself up to be blocked again. --Drmargi (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IceColdKillerz103. You have new messages at AussieLegend's talk page.
Message added 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Please also read the section above titled "Series overview articles and DVD dates". From your comments on my talk page, it appears that you missed it when I posted it. AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 15), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Devine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CSI: Cyber. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please include verifiable and real sources that indicate the episodes. This is a habit you have of doing. Callmemirela (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NYPDBlue S3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:NYPD Blue S2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LawAndOrderSVU S15.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Good Wife S5 DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LawAndOrderCI S1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LawAndOrderCI S2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LawAndOrderCI S3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]