User talk:Lady Paddock

Thatcherism/II

Please stop pushing your own political agenda. As your edits to the Thatherism template cite yourself, you have breached our no original research policy. Please provide reliable sources to explain your edits, not your own ideologies. Further reverts will result in you being blocked. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Thatcherism. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. It is one thing to do what you want with articles about soap opera characters, but quite another when editing serious topics.

As I have said to you before, you must support your edits and arguments with WP:RS. Thatcherism II might well be a good label, but we will need better arguments than your edit summaries here and here, and this argument. Can you supply references to published books, or articles written by reputable people? This is obligatory. Until you start editing in line with our policies, your editing is considered disruptive. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Campbell (Waterloo Road)

The only aspect of the Series 5 section to the Kim Campbell article you have got correct is her relationship with Max Tyler.

1) She did not disapprove of the merger - not once in the current series has she said that.

2) She did not dislike Max - she did not agree with his way of handling the situation with Michaela White in the assembly that is all.

3) It's John Fosters not John Fosters School - not to mention your trying to link an article that doesn't exist

4) Kim is not still in a realtionship with Andrew Treneman - Andrew is gone, reasons have not been revealed but nether the less he is gone and she is not currently seeing him.

5) Your revealing spoilers in the section - regarding Max's wife - Wikipedia is not a forum.

6) From your statement "Go away! If you have watched the show as long as have you will NO!" from the user talk and from the information your tyring to inflict on the article - its clear to me YOU need to buck up on your information on the show.

92.10.89.49 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a pointer: the ref tags may be used for episodes too. In cases like 1) above, you could write <ref>Episode x, Series y, 52mins</ref>. This will help the other party verify information. Spoilers are acceptable in Wikipedia: so long as information is verifiable. The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Twelfth Doctor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. snigbrook (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 00:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.