User talk:Jooner29

November 2014
Your recent editing history at Joshua Bonehill 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- GB fan 18:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jooner29. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is We've either got a shared account, an impersonator, or a tendentious editor. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that your latest edit counts as a manual revert. Another attempt to restore that biased material will result in you being reported for edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Joshua Bonehill. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. -- GB fan 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You claim here that multiple posters were spread by many "fans," when the source only mentions one poster. Also, would you explain why you've claimed to be Joshua Bonehill, and then claimed to not be Joshua Bonehill? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Use the talk page
I would highly suggest you do not edit Joshua Bonehill at all for a while. You should use the talk page and propose any changes you want to make. Provide the source that verifies the information when you post to the talk page. If you start edit warring at all again, I will reblock you. -- GB fan 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction
Please explain this edit and this one. You clearly contradict yourself. Please state what the truth is, and explain why you made at least one statement which is false. Unless you do so, such self-contradiction is likely to combine with other disruptive aspects of your editing to increase the likelihood that you will eventually be indefinitely blocked from editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)