User talk:UnkreativeFrog

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Brojam (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Star Wars: The Old Republic. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @UnkreativeFrog. You have been warned before about not randomly removing templates from articles, but did this in your recent edit on Polygamy. Please use more caution when editing pages and not removing relevant material and templates. Raladic (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Tales of the Jedi. As well as Tales of the Jedi (comics) Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UnkreativeFrog! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Lists of Star Wars actors several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Lists of Star Wars actors, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog,

You are on the verge of getting a block. Decisions about content aren't decided on Wikipedia by what an individual wants but by consensus. If your edit is reverted, discuss it on the article talk page, don't keep reverting back.

If you have questions, bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, this users did the SAME thing to some pages I've been editing, moving pages without consensus, and proposing deletions without discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits on here, but you can't move pages like

Hello, UnkreativeFrog,

You continue to do bold page moves without entering into any discussion with other editors. If this persists, I will have to issue a block. This is considered disruptive editing. This is not what you think a page title should be but what sources and the consensus of your editors think is appropriate. Please slow down, stop and discuss these changes with your fellow editors. I'd rather not block you but I will if this continues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you’re seriously overreacting. Maybe look at my changes and use a bit of common sense before threatening me. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Liz is saying. You need to slow down immediately or you're going to be blocked for

disruptive editing. This is a common issue - it takes time to learn how Wikipedia works. But you can't just go out guns a blazing like this while others clean up your messes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to agree with that. The positive out of all of this is that I proposed some page mergers, but doing bold page moves without entering discussion isn't right. Having a discussion is also an opportunity for users to propose other page names and come to consensus, and is important, without a doubt. It definitely takes time to learn how Wikipedia works, as I've been editing on here consistently since 2019, and still and learning more all the time. Even so, it is wrong to go guns a blazing and have others clean up messes. Historyday01 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said

Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s dont need to be merged because all their informations are already available in other articles. Its not like I PROPOSED the deletion randomly. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not mean to offend you're or someone elses work. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the changes offend me or the work of others, but believe they could have been done a better way. I once thought you do, and believed I could make bold changes like that on my own, and it led to some heated arguments on various WikiProjects. So, I'd say the changes were made with good intentions, but a merger allows for more discussion, as proposed deletion puts pages on the chopping block. Personally, I'm a bigger believer in solving issues before deletion has been proposed. I've participated in many deletion discussions over the years, and from my experience, often those proposing deletion do so as a shortcut, rather than trying to discuss their changes with other users first. Deletion should never be a substitute for what can be solved through editing.

I admit that those pages are not the best and were only created (by me) some time ago to serve as a place to link to the lists of LGBTQ animated characters (with the List of animated series with LGBT characters in bad shape before I did some revisions years ago). While saying all of that, I would rather have discussion about possible mergers than deleting them outright. I've been thinking a LOT recently about restructuring those pages and others about LGBTQ animation, but I can only do so much on my own. As such it is a pretty slow process, but I'd like to involve as MANY people on here as possible in it. Furthermore,

there is no rush to improve or create articles. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but a merger is much better than proposing a deletion. As I've said before, deletion is no substitute for what can be solved through editing. I proposed the mergers and hope that some good can come from there. Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I editing disruptively? Sorry but Maybe just look at my changes and use a bit of nuance before accusing smb. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, if I wasn't somewhat

not listening. If you continue to keep doing what you're doing, you're going to get blocked by another admin. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Can I PLEASE get a fucking answer what about the changes is really disruptive. The edit on Ahsoka (TV series) just adds a missing premise, supported by reliable sources, the edits on the LGBT animated series are also reasonable and explained. Again just look at my changes and use a bit of nuance and common sense and stop threatening me. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly starting to think your just trolling. UnkreativeFrog (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, yet not surprising response. Good luck with your future editing. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greg Ellis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UnkreativeFrog (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a note that when you post a merge template, such as at Special:Diff/1144192913, you are supposed to also create the discussion for this with your rationale (at Talk:List of Star Wars characters. Did you want to continue with this? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Parker (disambiguation). 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. I'm leaving you this warning since I noticed you've attempted to revert back to your revision of that page multiple times this year, and each time, editors have provided you the information why your revision goes against policies, but your insistence to keep restoring your revision anyways is what is disruptive. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

You know what? You deserve a barnstar. Your recent productive edits on Peter Parker (disambiguation) after restoring the problematic revision represent probably the first time in my 10+ years editing Wikipedia where I've seen an editor take a warning message seriously, learn from it, and address the issues stated in the warning message and adapt their edits ... as you did on Peter Parker (disambiguation). I'm impressed, and ... quite happy you did that! Thank you so much! Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog,

Please be more careful with your page moves. Several have been reverted or changed to redirects. There is also no reason to do multiple page moves of the same page. You have to have a very good reason to move an article and often you should have a discussion on the article talk page to discuss a move prior to doing it. When other editors are reverting your page moves, there is a problem here. Please handle this more thoughtfully and do not do a page move based on your personal preference or on an impulse. You should always be following policy guidelines. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously try to do page moves only when necessary. Most of my page moves are made because missing disambiguators with can easily lead to confusion. The multiple moves of the same page were because of a typo in the title.UnkreativeFrog (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But if I seriously did/do a wrong redirect people can write that here.UnkreativeFrog (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw am I on a list of editors assigned to you or why/how do we interact so often? Thank you for an answer in advance.UnkreativeFrog (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Heartbrand logo 1998-2003.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Heartbrand logo prior to 1998.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IGDB 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/IGDB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

IgelRM (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I intended to withdraw my nomination but got sick IRL. Apologies if I caused you stress. I might look into a merger talk page discussion when I get to it. Regards IgelRM (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 01:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, UnkreativeFrog. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 05:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.