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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please read

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. [[User:JimBarbasol|JimBarbasol]] ([[User talk:JimBarbasol#top|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:JimBarbasol|JimBarbasol]] ([[User talk:JimBarbasol#top|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. [[User:JimBarbasol|JimBarbasol]] ([[User talk:JimBarbasol#top|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}