User talk:Mickeydee15

December 2015

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not delete references. Ever. If other episode summaries don't have references, and you want the episodes to appear similar, find them for those with missing references rather than removing those with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes, 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. Please do not ever remove references from the article again. Take a look at this progression:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Murdoch Mysteries, you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove references for any episode, even if they are past. It goes against WP:RS Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for removal of references at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spencer^T♦C 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Murdoch Mysteries, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Didn't you get blocked for deleting references from this article in the past? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. What's your problem with that article? Yintan 21:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not with the problem. I am compromising. Why can't you????? Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting is compromising? How? Why are you deleting? Yintan 21:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't originally delete them. Another user did, because they decided it wasn't necessary after nine seasons. I thought a compromise would be better. If you can get the other user to leave them there, fine. If not, this why I create a separate place for the guest stars. Mickeydee15 (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guest stars on Murdoch Mysteries until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not talk/sound like white noise? Mickeydee15 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you for your additions to the article. They are greatly appreciated, but it’s not entirely clear to me why you would decide to remove references after you were blocked for doing that a few months ago. You have had multiple warnings since then for doing similar. I’ll assume good faith and think that you assume that references are temporal and can be removed when an event occurs. Let me assure you that they are not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Blank pages? What's blank? I removed a reference, that I put, because it's no longer needed. Mickeydee15 (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "don't remove references" are you having a hard time understanding? That it has already aired (in all but the Pacific timezone) is no reason to remove a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for continuing the same edit war that you were warned about last week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Murdoch Mysteries. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Replacing a {{citation needed}} with a hidden comment is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspans

Please don't insert rowspans into filmography tables. It hinders accessibility by making them harder to sort through and goes against WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography tables. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't listen to my above notice; DO NOT "merge" dates in filmography tables by using rowspans. It is an inappropriate practice for accessibility concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so annoying?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Androptrnt (talk • contribs)

Mickeydee15, it's now quite clear you purposefully are ignoring talk page notices, though I can't seem to figure out exactly why. Whatever that reason might be, blatantly disregarding notices like this is bad practice, and YOU NEED TO STOP "MERGING" ENTRIES IN FILMOGRAPHY TABLES WITH ROWSPANS. This is not appropriate for such tables because it makes them harder to sort. You'll probably get reported for disruption if this keeps up. The fact that you also deliberately disregarded a hidden notice saying not to insert the rowspans only makes things worse. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nikki Reed. Listen to what everyone else is saying, and cut it out with the rowspans. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jodie Sweetin. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to assume the user was also disruptive at Candace Cameron Bure [1]. Removing year ranges from their filmography, and just simplifying them to the initial year in the range, just to use rowspan in the Filmography tables, is considered disruptive. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Jodie Sweetin.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are getting closer to a block! Please discuss your changes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:FILMOGRAPHY and how the tables are done. There is nothing wrong with use of year ranges in the column where the year is provided. Again, removing the ranges and just putting in the initial year, just so you can rowspan several rows in the table (like [2]), is disruptive. At the very least, discuss why you are making these changes and attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS for them. You are risking a block if you continue to make these kind of changes to the tables against consensus. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Hemsworth. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mickeydee15. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes, you may be blocked from editing. -- Alex^TW 01:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Big Bang Theory (season 11). Septrillion (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Big Bang Theory (season 11), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Big Bang Theory (season 11), you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you... -- Alex^TW 14:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Lauren Lee Smith. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lauren Lee Smith, you may be blocked from editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Lauren Lee Smith while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Lauren Lee Smith shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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.
Your attempts to edit as the IP fool no one – continue with this, and I will report you to WP:ANEW and attempt to get you blocked for continued disruption. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's more a discussion about this has been opened at Talk:Lauren Lee Smith#WP:ACCESSIBILITY which you have so far ignored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Lauren Lee Smith#WP:ACCESSIBILITY

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lauren Lee Smith#WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Lauren Lee Smith, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. There is already a discussion at the article's Talk page, and a link from your own Talk page to this, and yet you continue to ignore them. This is pure WP:Disruptive editing at this point. Keep it up, and it's likely to get you blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Lauren Lee Smith#WP:ACCESSIBILITY (second request)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Lauren Lee Smith#WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Second request for discussion Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References are required for upcoming episodes

Thanks for contributing to the article List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). Thanks! P.S. If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Klock101 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please see Talk:List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes#References for upcoming episodes' info in order to discuss this further. Klock101 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes#References for upcoming episodes' info

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes#References for upcoming episodes' info . Klock101 (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018 2

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Klock101 (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Klock101 (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018 3

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes. Please visit the discussion here to talk about this. This would be a really stupid thing to be blocked over. Klock101 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the evidence at the noticeboard it looks like you should be blocked for adding unsourced information. A review of your block log suggests that you have a consistent pattern of doing this. Can you explain why you shouldn't be blocked? You could agree to change your approach. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mickeydee15. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wes Ramsey. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Mario Lopez, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You have been warned repeatedly not to use 'rowspan' in tables when it violates WP:ACCESS, and you continue to ignore this. At this point, this falls under disruptive editing. Keep this up, and you may well earn yourself another block for this behavior. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MarnetteD|Talk 04:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have been aware, but the guideline WP:BURDEN says: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ... Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COATRACK. The other people in the episode and what its plotline is are not relevant to Abdul-Jabbar's article. You are already over 3rr so it would be a good idea for you to work on other editing. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. —Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Candace Cameron Bure, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been warned multiple, MULTIPLE times about this, and still you persist. You clearly have no interest in editing as per WP:5P4, so it's probably time you think about doing something else with your time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Sarah Michelle Gellar while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, as you did at User talk:IJBall, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 122.108.183.105 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rowpsan

Please stop adding rowspan to articles, I too prefer rowspan however it causes issues with screen readers and for those who are visually impaired so as such they cannot be used here,
Please read WP:Accessibility and please stop with your rowspan additions, If you continue I'll have no choice but to drag you to WP:ANI,
Thank you. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 19:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frankie Drake Mysteries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Mitchell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 10:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]