User talk:JimBarbasol

September 2009

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. JNW (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of As the World Turns characters, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Jncraton (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

One Life to Live

Please do not replace "is" for "was". OLTL is still a TV show even if it is no longer in production. It is the same standard that applies to all former TV shows and OLTL is no exception.

If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Regards. Farine (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at One Life to Live. 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. Thank you. Farine (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2015

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jon Hensley. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Jon Hensley, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Continuing to ignore several of Wikipedia's policies, as well as engaging in an edit-war, and using your IP to get your own preference across (which violates the site's policy on sock-puppets) is ultimately going to result in you receiving a block from this website. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Jon Hensley 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 23:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read

Further additions of unsourced material will result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, you are edit warring on Jon Hensley. Please undo your last change or you will be blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You were given the opportunity to revert your edit but instead you chose to ignore it. [1] During your block, I suggest you read WP:NOR. You cannot say a subject is not active in their occupation based on your observations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for immediately continuing to edit war after your block expiration.. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that you have chosen to return to edit warring on the same article that led to your two previous blocks. You will therefore not be surprised that you have been blocked again, for a longer time. Also, as has been repeatedly explained to you (the first time in 2009) you should not add content to articles which does not have sources to support it, and your own observation is not a reliable source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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).

JimBarbasol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Jon Hensley IS divorced. In fact, his ex-wife is back to using her maiden name. See her twitter account: https://twitter.com/kelleyMHensley?lang=en Unblock me now. I posted nothing but the truth. JimBarbasol (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't see a single edit of yours tat added sources to support your claims, despite multiple warnings on this page. Even now that you're blocked, you still haven't bothered to read the policies you've been pointed to, as evidenced by your usage of Twitter as a source. Max Semenik (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JimBarbasol. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

JimBarbasol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18214 was submitted on May 06, 2017 23:16:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock Me Now

Unblock me now. I have been posting for months that Jon Hensley was divorced, since his wife went back to using her maiden name on her Twitter page, and suddenly the "wife" was missing from her self-description as a "Mother, actress,writer,faithful friend, more to follow.." That wasn't rocket science to figure out. Now, though, the divorce is public, seen at the link below:

http://www.soapoperadigest.com/content/catching-kelley-menighan/

The series, which was filmed in 2013, marked an emotional time for Menighan, who was dealing with a very personal situation when she signed on to do it: her split from longtime husband Jon Hensley (ex-Holden, ATWT). Hensley lives nearby, and Menighan shares, “We are much happier single parents — I don’t like the word divorced — than we ever were together. We are just better. We’re friendly, we’re raising our children together and that’s the most important part.” Looking back, she says it was crucial to her to keep their split under wraps for as long as they did. “The element of privacy was imperative,” she reflects. “I just didn’t want to have it be an issue with anybody; it was too personal. But, the upside is if anybody ever wants guidance on how to do it, they should call Jon and me, because I think we did it fairly well. I commend him, and I commend myself for that. Other than Martha [Byrne] and Michael [Park], Maura [West] and my closest friends I spoke to, nobody asked anything. Ever. Fans didn’t even, really. It’s sort of a testament to the kind of people we all worked with.”

Furthermore, you seem to take issue with me saying Jon Hensley was active from 1985 to 2013, saying I have no proof he is no longer acting. It's called turning on the TV. His appearance on Bold and the Beautiful in 2013 was the last TV show/movie acting he did, period. I expect to be promptly unblocked.

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).

JimBarbasol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Unblock me now. I have been posting for months that Jon Hensley was divorced, since his wife went back to using her maiden name on her Twitter page, and suddenly the "wife" was missing from her self-description as a "Mother, actress,writer,faithful friend, more to follow.." That wasn't rocket science to figure out. Now, though, the divorce is public, seen at the link below:

http://www.soapoperadigest.com/content/catching-kelley-menighan/

The series, which was filmed in 2013, marked an emotional time for Menighan, who was dealing with a very personal situation when she signed on to do it: her split from longtime husband Jon Hensley (ex-Holden, ATWT). Hensley lives nearby, and Menighan shares, “We are much happier single parents — I don’t like the word divorced — than we ever were together. We are just better. We’re friendly, we’re raising our children together and that’s the most important part.” Looking back, she says it was crucial to her to keep their split under wraps for as long as they did. “The element of privacy was imperative,” she reflects. “I just didn’t want to have it be an issue with anybody; it was too personal. But, the upside is if anybody ever wants guidance on how to do it, they should call Jon and me, because I think we did it fairly well. I commend him, and I commend myself for that. Other than Martha [Byrne] and Michael [Park], Maura [West] and my closest friends I spoke to, nobody asked anything. Ever. Fans didn’t even, really. It’s sort of a testament to the kind of people we all worked with.”

Furthermore, you seem to take issue with me saying Jon Hensley was active from 1985 to 2013, saying I have no proof he is no longer acting. It's called turning on the TV. His appearance on Bold and the Beautiful in 2013 was the last TV show/movie acting he did, period. I expect to be promptly unblocked.

Decline reason:

You will not be unblocked while you continue to insist that your own personal observations/deductions constitute sufficient sources for Wikipedia content. The fact that one of your personal deductions turned out to be correct is not relevant - you *must use* sources compliant with WP:RS, especially in BLP articles, and we need to be convinced that you understand and accept that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

It wasn't a personal deduction. Obviously, I put two-and-two together, yes, but when I did that, I contacted Kelley Menighan, who was following me at the time on Twitter, and she confirmed the divorce to me via DM back in 2014 when I DMed her.

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

JimBarbasol (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

Block ID: #7459646 (BlockList • unblock)
Blocking admin: Materialscientist (talk • blocks)
Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "JimBarbasol". The reason given for JimBarbasol's block is: "Persistent addition of unsourced content".

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=JimBarbasol}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Materialscientist | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "JimBarbasol". The reason given for JimBarbasol's block is: "Persistent addition of unsourced content".</nowiki> | 3=127.0.0.1 | 4=7459646 | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "JimBarbasol". The reason given for JimBarbasol's block is: "Persistent addition of unsourced content".</nowiki> | 3=Materialscientist | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=127.0.0.1 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "JimBarbasol". The reason given for JimBarbasol's block is: "Persistent addition of unsourced content".</nowiki> | 3=Materialscientist | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}