User talk:JudgeJulianZ

Baconian theory
I always worry about people who revert an article they haven't studied. I HAVE studied it and the Anderson book is Oxfordian propaganda inserted by Smatprt, a propagandist. This is what you should know. Smatprt is an agenda pusher who bullies his Oxfordian POV into as many articles as he can. Please check the testimony of other editors: “his editing greatly hampered the drive to make William Shakespeare a featured article, in the face of requests from assessors to stop”, “he will push and push and push to get in Oxfordian arguments by any means and exclude "Statfordian" ones by any means”, “his practice is destructive, and he makes the lives of the other Shakespeare editors wearisome”. JudgeJulianZ (talk)


 * Creating lots of sockpuppets will not help you in making your point, and is quite likely to get you blocked. Please stop. --fvw *  00:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the page, it has come to my attention that you are not removing the content, but one of two citations. Therefore, you agree with the content. Since, and only since, you have removed a source and not what the source is refering to, there seems to be no justification for your actions. There is a reliable sources noticeboard if a source is questionable. However, such arguments are undermined by your not removing of the text. 75.104.128.56 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked this account from editing, per checkuser evidence that all of these accounts appear to be controlled by the same individual:

– Luna Santin  (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)