User talk:Justpassinby

Welcome!

Hi Justpassinby! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Reason Revolution

With regards to your comments about this article and Chloe Alper - I have no problems with their inclusion as such, but you are right about the style of prose within them, and I agree that Wikipedia is being misappropriated here, possibly by Alper herself (given the style and content), or somebody close to her.

What I suggest is the removal of all unsourced statements. I'll post a note on both article's talk pages to give them a few days of grace (we have to be reasonable here I think). Once all unsourced content is removed (per the policies of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:CITE), I think we will see what kind of articles we're really looking at. What do you think? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left comments at these article's talk pages regarding my intended way forwards. By all means if there is an improvement drive which takes place and neutralises the content, then I believe that's a positive outcome.

You mentioned Wren's Nest in an earlier post - are you a Shaw and Crompton man/woman? Hope you decide to stay and learn a little about Wikipedia and perhaps become a fully fledged and regular contributor. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Pure Reason Revolution has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Pure Reason Revolution constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Pure Reason Revolution. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Triona (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Pure Reason Revolution. Dureo (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. Tango (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Bondegezou (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please stop adding your signature to the top of articles when you edit them. Attribution for edits is given automatically on the history page. --Tango (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Jon Courtney, you will be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justpassinby (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Bondegezou (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature again

As I've told you before, please do not add your signature to the top of articles, attribution is done automatically on the history page. If you continue to do so, it will be considered disruptive behaviour. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warrning on Pure Reason Revolution

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pure Reason Revolution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what a surprise. Moonriddengirl, the admin who blocked the deletion of the Jon Courtney page, claiming concensus where none existed and then went on to re-write the same page as a biography of Jon Courtney tells me off for upsetting her friend Bondegezou. You'll be the ruination of Wiki.