User talk:JJonz

Thing
This is in regard to your constant removal of speed from the Thing's superhero box. The OHOTMU states that the Thing does possess some degree of superhuman speed. While we can't use OHOTMU stats or power ratings, we can use info provided by the OHOTMU so long as we don't write it out almost word for word as they've written it. His speed might not reach levels as to where he looks like a blur as he's moving, but that's irrelevant. The fact that the speed isn't often mentioned, or even used, is irrelevant. The fact that you might not agree that he has superhuman speed is irrelevant. Personal opinions don't count in the articles, only legitimate information that can be backed up with some kind of source. Unless a canon source can be found and provided that retcons the Thing possessing superhuman speed, then it should stay in. Otherwise, removing it counts as vandalism. Odin&#39;s Beard 15:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Orion (comics) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 06:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Hulk (comics), you will be blocked from editing. Gscshoyru 12:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had a look at your revert for the Hulk and I do not belive it is vandilism. I belive you should challange this Tjnewell 15:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wonder Woman. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 11:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this change on the talk page for Wonder Woman. We're already discussing it, and your input would be welcome. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * JJonz, rather than repeatedly re-making your edit to the Wonder Woman entry, it would be much more constructive if you would contribute to the discussion of your change at the Talk page, where other editors have expressed their thoughts and opinions about your contribution.--Galliaz 04:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Powers and abilities of Superman. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Despero, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Please, please, please discuss these edits on the talk page before you make them, or at the very least explain them in your edit summaries... I'm not so sure Superman is deserving of that much praise, perhaps you can explain why you think he is. Thanks!'' Gscshoyru 09:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of the WW Discussion Page
JJonz, I was dismayed by the changes you made to the Wonder Woman talk page this morning, which amounted to vandalism.

Here's the definition of the term, from the Wikipedia | vandalism page: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Your edit, which deleted the comments of several editors from the record of the discussion, certainly fits the criteria. I have gone out of my way to invite and urge you to engage in a constructive dialogue over the disputed part of the entry, and consequently find it especially offensive that you would reciprocate by excising the response I made to your comment.--Galliaz 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You and User:CrystalB4
You and User:CrystalB4 aren't the same person, are you? I think you may be... your edits are very much alike, and you have both started editing at the same time twice now. Your join dates are also 3 days apart. Keep in mind this is in violation of WP:SOCK so if you are, I suggest you use only one account to do your editing. If it's just a coincidence, then sorry. Oh, and incedentally, please try talking on the talk page before you make all these somewhat POV'd edits... thanks! Gscshoyru 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
JJonz, you and user Gscshoyru really need to stop reverting my edits for whatever reasons. This is bordering on vandalism and you really need to cease and desist. Do you have something against me?--CrystalB4 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits... again
Dude. Please. You reverted all the way back to your version, which in some of the cases, deleted other people's hard work that had been done afterward. Please, please, please stop. Discuss your changes on the talk page, where everyone else is discussing them, and come to a consensus, before changing the articles like that. Thank you. Gscshoyru 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Despero. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 13:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Powers and abilities of Superman. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Moonriddengirl 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hulk (comics). 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 which gains a consensus among editors. Gscshoyru 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. ugen64 13:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

... and again
You have been blocked for a period of 72 hours for continuing revert-warring soon after the expiry of your previous block. It is always recommended that editors engage in civil discussion on the talk page articles rather than making mass reverts much like what you have done now. Please feel free to return and make constructive edits after the expiry of your block. I strongly recommend that you discuss and don't revert without prior discussion on the talk pages. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/JJonz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Gscshoyru 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

 You have been blocked for attempting to use sockpuppets (see User:JJonz2) to evade a previous block. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 13:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 You have been blocked for using sockpuppets (see Marsmanhu) yet again to circumvent your ongoing block. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Daniel Case 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Next time it's indefinite. Daniel Case 04:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)