I really don't get why you put "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars" in every Indiana Jones related article. It's just ridiculous. Please stop. ColdFusion650 (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the speedy delete tag. That is vandalism. ColdFusion650 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator has removed your article. Please do not recreate it. ColdFusion650 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've redirected all your versions to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There is not reason to have WP:POVFORKs of the article. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is with particular regard to your continual edits/article creations of Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars csaribay (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not made any edits to the page "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars." This is obvious, due to the fact that this page does not exist." [1]

When you lie about not making edits, make sure that no one can look at the edit history. It's pretty easy to tell that you have made edits to that article. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when you say you're on the faculty at the University of Arizona, make sure that they don't have a faculty directory for people to look it up in. I would figure that in the last 4 years, they would have updated it. There is no Woodsworth listed on the faculty, or adjunct faculty, and no mention anywhere on the website. ColdFusion650 (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, likewise, have reverted this additon on the basis that it's a breach of WP:UNDUE at this point and barely relevant. The point is dealt with at an appropriate level in the article for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Meanwhile, it seems that consensus is against you, and if you wish to debate that, the article's talk page is the proper venue for that. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 18:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the original title shouldn't be mentioned everywhere having to do with the movie. ~~ N (t/c) 18:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly reverted over 3 times already. This is your only warning. If you revert Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull again, you will be blocked. ~~ N (t/c) 18:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for 3RR violation; see the bottom of WP:AN/3RR. ~~ N (t/c) 19:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making duplicate articles about the latest Indiana Jones movie. Please stop, or this will be considered vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting {{pp-semi-vandalism}} on an article doesn't actually protect it, FYI. Only an admin can do that. ~~ N (t/c) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Indiana and the Saucer Men from Mars, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is your intention to merely add the information you've noted on my talk page, but the fact is that it has already been sufficiently covered in the main article, and does not need forking/separation. You have been been warned numerous times on your talk page to please stop this behavior, and your edit history clearly seems to indicate that you have not heeded such warnings. This is considered vandalism on Wikipedia.

If you feel it's necessary to make additions with regard to this film's original working name, then please do so to the main article. Thank you. csaribay (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to explain a little more here- The film's main article already has a small section devoted to the content you are trying to add to Wikipedia. Since this passage already exists (I've placed it to the right of this message for reference), you do not need to further edit the main article unless you have verifiable information that you can add and appropriately reference. Adding additional content forks (pages) of the main article is largely unnecessary. This has nothing to barring the information you want posted, since it already exists.

Since Wikipeida has several official policies in place and has a very large editorial force, policy based decisions do not require several days to be handled professionally, rather, just moments. Any editor can make such suggestions for deletion or other actions in due course, and trusted administrators are the last line, carrying out the action. Your edits are welcome on Wikipedia, but they must be within policy. So far, it appears you have violated our article fork policy and our three revert rule.

Please contact me if you have additional questions. csaribay (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now everyone who is opposed to your edits "MAY OR MAY NOT BE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE FILM"?[2] That's truly amusing... utterly wrong, but amusing... thanks for the laugh - although I doubt you'll appreciate that. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so your not in on the conspiracy? ColdFusion650 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

VanTucky 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JTWoodsworth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for inserting a POV tag! How ridiculous is that? If I was inserting a point of view, I could understand, but my saying that other peoples point of view is prejudice is that grounds?

Decline reason:

If it were only that simple. No, you were blocked for edit warring, and a violation of the three revert rule. Edit warring is disruptive, and you were warned to stop, but chose not to. — Rjd0060 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JTWoodsworth_-_misleading_user_page_and_sockpuppetry. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. 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 {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Apparent sockpuppetry. Disruptive editing at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:JTWoodsworth.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]