User talk:EPANews

Jaerock Lee

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Jaerock Lee, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. The content you added is not supported by the source you claimed it was in. cab (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Jaerock Lee. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. cab (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Jaerock Lee. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. The source does NOT say that his ministry is "uncontroversial" or that he has been "Accorded of being an occult leader" --- in fact it says the exact opposite. cab (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

You have been temporarily blocked from editing 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. Cirt (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After your unblock you continue to persist in inserting wild claims from self-published sources [1], ridiculously self-serving unsourced statements which attempt to whitewash violent incidents [2], and invalid links which you claim are sources [3]. This is vandalism and this is the only warning you will receive before you are blocked again. cab (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sock puppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews, and you are therefore blocked for a period of 3 days. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.
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. MuZemike 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you have been re-blocked for 2 weeks per the latest sock puppetry going on. Do it again, and the next block will be indefinite. MuZemike 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been indefinitely blocked

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely.
If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EPANews for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]