Jackiestud

Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence

You must answer this question. There appears to be a breach of the GFDL licence and if you aren't going to explain it then you can't be allowed to continue editing. This is a legal issue, not a content dispute. Please show that you are genuinely interested in working with other editors to edit the English Wikipedia by responding.

It looks as though this [1] is in part copy and paste from another article. There are fact tags and different forms of citation which I am sure are not yours. Where did this come from? It is breaking our GFDL licence. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Iam sorry, I don´t remember. Jackiestud (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not good. It's a legal requirement to do the attribution, as you are using other people's work. Please don't do that again. You can copy and paste but you must put a link in the edit summary. And just because something is in one article doesn't mean it's ok, there is a lot of bad stuff around. Articles such as these should use academic sources rather than websites unless you find a particularly good website. And websites such as AbsoluteAstronomy take their stuff from Wikipedia and you can't use them. You also need to understand that where there is significant disagreement about something that must be made clear. You misrepresented what our Adam article says. The name may be related to the word for red, but that's not what you wrote, and the original source for the 'red' bit in any case is Josephus, hardly a good source for an etymology. A lot of people think that 'religion', worshipping deities, is relatively recent - certainly not 30,000 years old - that early man didn't distinguish between the secular and the sacred the way we do. We don't even know for sure what the Venus figurines are, and our articles should not suggest we do. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ochre. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Feminism

Hi Jackiestud! Just letting you know that I replied to your message on my talk page. --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page again. Just check my userpage often on to make sure I've replied to you or not. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied to you again, just "watch" my talk page to see when I reply to you, so I don't have to say "I replied to you" on your talk page everytime. Thanks! :) --Grrrlriot (♠ ♣ ♦ ♥ †) 03:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Removing BLP violating material is exempt from 3RR, but adding it isn't. Get WP:CONSENSUS on talk and add WP:RS - but propose on talk first please. Verbal chat 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prehistoric art. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

'See also' sections

You keep re-adding articles to this that are already linked in the main article, even when this has been pointed out to you. Please stop. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Athena and category mother goddess

I want to note that I removed the category mother goddesses from Athena and Ishtar gate. Athena according to Greek mythology is a virgin and hence cannot be a mother goddess. Ishtar Gate, while dedicated to a goddess of fertility, is not a goddess itself. Please be more careful when adding categories to articles. Thanks, Sifaka ^talk 03:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

From out article mother goddess: "A mother goddess is a term used to refer to any goddess associated with motherhood, fertility, creation or the bountiful embodiment of the Earth". Athena is associated with none of those things. Athena is associated with wisdom, peace, warfare, strategy, handicrafts and reason, shrewd companion of heroes, heroic endeavors, and virginity. It isn't up to me to prove Athena isn't a mother goddess. It's up to you to find a reliable source that says Athena is a Mother Goddess. It is original research and a weak argument to claim that Athena is a mother goddess because Athena may have been slightly influenced by the Potnia Theron. The Goddess most associated with the Potnia Theron is Artemis. Sifaka ^talk 15:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal chat 09:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Verbal chat 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported to WP:AN3. Please comment there if you wish to defend yourself. Verbal chat 11:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for WP:3RR violation. Please stop. You are 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira. For the full account, see the complaint at the 3RR noticeboard. After your block expires, I urge you to demonstrate through your actions that you are willing to follow Wikipedia policy. If not, you may be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira

Please stop editing the article and join the discussion on the talk. Note the very recent and strong warning you were given by the admin who blocked you, and please take heed of it. Verbal chat 18:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you make another revert against BLP policy I will ask the blocking admin above to review your behaviour on returning from your block. Verbal chat 18:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits to User talk:Verbal could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Verbal chat 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Don´t make me laugh

If you continue to damage my work and Simone´s (one of the world´s greatest singers) there will be a legal action. Jackiestud (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Verbal chat 08:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Verbal chat 09:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackiestud for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Verbal chat 10:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)