User talk:Jamesgtmoore

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jamesgtmoore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Billy Meier. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Wisdom89 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace symbols

Hi. I reverted your contribution to peace symbols because it fails to comply with multiple Wikipedia policies:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight - The article doesn't need an entire section devoted to an obscure symbol.
Wikipedia:Copyright violations - The text was largely copied from the web site you cited.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources - The only source cited appears to be a "primary source" rather than a reliable 3rd party source. The cited source itself appears to be more of a "fringe" source than "reliable".
Wikipedia:Verifiability - A description of the Salome peace symbol can't be verified (as far as I can tell) in a source considered reliable. There are plenty of references to it on the web, but they're mostly forums and blogs, which aren't acceptable.

A brief mention of this symbol in the section of the article titled "Other symbols" might be appropriate, but someone else may come along and remove it for the reasons I list above. =Axlq 01:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Talmud Jmmanuel. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm Rhododendrites. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ruhollah Khomeini because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Billy Meier, you may be blocked from editing. You are removing sourced information from the article, and will almost certainly be blocked if you continue to do so. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the notice but the removed sections were not from WP:RS sources. I'm simply following the rules.

Your recent editing history at Billy Meier 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Billy Meier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JimRenge (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you participate in this discussion of your behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Billy Meier) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]