Hello, Jordanjames, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Happy editing!

Hiya. Nice to see someone editing the article, but none of the stuff you added is within Wikipedia rules. If you would like to keep editing Jake's page though, please feel free, just read the policies and Jake's talkpage first, yeah? Thanks. Dev920 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your persistent speculative changes have to be considered vandalism if you do it again. The information that you keep changing was agreed by extensive discussion on the talkpage - discuss there if you want to change anything. Dev920 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your recent edits because they did not provide any reliable corroborating evidence. Please note that biographical information must use reliable sources; see WP:V for more information. Thank you. --Muchness 13:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanjames, quit trolling. You're adding purely speculative and potentially damaging nonsense about Austin Nichols and Jake Gyllenhaal. This encyclopedia is supposed to conform to certain standards, which you obviously do not possess. So how about you find another place to spout crap? 24.224.143.211 16:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jake and Austin's lives are not yours to project on. Please stop, or I will have to report you for vandalism. Dev920 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:You_Don't_Know_Me.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. Nv8200p talk 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Cover of You Don't Know Me .jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Cover of You Don't Know Me .jpg is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Cover of You Don't Know Me .jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:99.244.13.233. Thank you.--Pharos 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Shades of Blackface, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. SimonLyall 10:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several things: first, an anonymous user has already added the information about Walker's affair with Chapman to the "Biography" section, and so your addition only duplicated it. Second, please do not copy and paste information from one article to another, as you did with the Alice Walker article. I'm quite familiar with Walker's article because I wrote most of it, including the bit about their affair. It is more acceptable to paraphrase; otherwise it may be considered a form of plagiarism. María (críticame) 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that both you and user:99.244.13.233, which I'm guessing is also you, edit articles that have been previously mentioned on Orville Lloyd Douglas's blog. I have reason to believe that you are in fact Douglas, and if this is the case, you may have a conflict of interest regarding Douglas' article as well as other articles that you have edited. Please be aware that COI is taken very seriously on Wikipedia, and it is not something to take lightly. Disruptive editors who violate COI have been banned before. I would suggest that you edit more carefully, utilizing reliable sources and doing appropriate research and citing. María (críticame) 14:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about referencing information. External links are not the same as references. Again, please refrain from emailing me about Wikipedia matters. María (críticame) 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Orville Lloyd Douglas, you will be blocked from editing. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jordanjames for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Orville Lloyd Douglas. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. 67.71.29.22 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Orville Lloyd Douglas, you will be blocked from editing. 99.242.182.87 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (please stop removing content)[reply]

I have returned the primary sources template, which I and others have considered appropriate to the article. If you feel otherwise, please discuss on the talk page, the appropriate place in which to address the issue. The offensive comment you posted on my talk page is a certain violation of Wikipedia’s policy on civility. I ask you to withdraw your remarks. 99.242.182.87 (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for very poor levels of civility in recent edit. 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. --VS ^talk 03:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Orville Lloyd Douglas 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. Thank you. Say Headcheese!--hexaChord² 18:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Orville Lloyd Douglas constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 21:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Orville Lloyd Douglas has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. vvv^t 22:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jordanjames. Please don't do this. Such edits are unsourced, run afoul of other policies, and have proved to be highly disruptive to the project in the past. If you can identify one or more reliable sources, that's a different story, but if there's any doubt I'd suggest taking it to the article's talk page first. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]