User talk:Cmmmm

You have repeatedly contended that racism promoted by JWs is of enough significance to have it in the main JW article. The basis of the claim relates to long abandoned teachings from around a hundred years ago. It is not a current issue relating to JWs, and should not be on the main article. If you believe this to be untrue, state your case on the Talk page of the JW article to seek concensus from other editors. Do not restore the material to the article until you have done this.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the edits you want in place under racism are a) necessary, and b) confirmed by the reference, you need to state your reasons on the Talk page. You need to explain

a) how a reference from 1914 proves segregation in the 1950s. b) why racism among members of JWs at the same rate as in the rest of the society is a notable element of a controversy. --Jeffro77 (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continually reverting with material containing references that are being disputed is not the correct process, especially if you failed to respond regarding why you believe the disputed material should be there. Please also review the Wikipedia guidelines regarding edit disputes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You once again reverted the text with inappropriate references. You have made no attempt to explain why you believe the references to be appropriate. If you continue to refuse to follow the proper dispute resolution process, your actions will be reported to an Administrator for arbitration.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am progressing this issue immediately to Arbitration as you have made no attempt to justify the references you seek to include, that have been objected to for the stated reasons on the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration request has been made at

I have just noticed on your user page in large letters, "The Jehovas Witnesses want to kill me, again". Irrespective of whether that allegation is true, though I doubt it is, it indicates that you have a bias against JWs. Please leave your biases aside when editing Wikipedia articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you "do not accept the edit of Vassilis78", then you need to go to the Talk page and discuss, with reasons. Otherwise you are just repeating the same behaviour as before. You already demonstrated that you edit in bad faith, and continuing to do so will ultimately get you banned.--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of

Excuse me please, please tell me why you say on your user page the Jehovahs Witnesses want to kill you. That is a very interesting statement. Just curious. thanks Jesse James Shoot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Jaimes (talk • contribs) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it has something to do with "intimitation", whatever that means. Maybe Tre2 knows.--Jeffro77 (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Racism among JWs is obviously a very significant issue to you, as demonstrated on your User page. However, as far as it relates to JW controversies in general, it is not a current issue of extraordinary issues. While it may merit some mention, it doesn't need pride of place just because you feel strongly about it.

Please read Wikipedia's policies regarding trying to use Wikipedia to voice personal issues (in particular, points 1 and 2 apply most to your actions):

Continued disruption to JW articles without proper discussion will be brought to the attention of administrators.

Perhaps you should follow the advice of the link above, and start your own blog away from Wikipeida for your pet concerns about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 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) 16:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

Administrators will be asked to assist again if you do not follow the proper procedures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1] - do you have a nomination suggestion for

[2] - I'd prefer if we keep it to

Featured Articles for this subsection of the portal. If all the articles within a particular "Selected content" section of a portal are of a Featured Article quality, we can call that subsection "Featured article". But if not, then we have to call it "Selected article". Since we have 19 FAs to randomize through, I'd like to keep it to just FAs. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As a result of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cmmmm you are blocked 48 hours and the sock indef. Don't sock again. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking the

I have blanked the content of your user page. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia or the work you do here. If you want to host that kind of content, do it on your own webpage, not on Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this - wikipedia is not a soapbox for people's offsite disputes - be they with the watchtower, the IRS or batman, so that sort of content is prohibited. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormons themselves are an example of multiculturalism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the JW controversies article. Not only was the revert inappropriate in principle because the freeminds website is not a reliable encyclopedic source, but you are also repeating your previous behaviour of restoring your own version of the article without any regard for intermediate edits in other parts of the article. This behaviour is considered disruptive, and will be reported again if it continues. If you believe your points to be valid, you need to discuss (not 'copy-and-paste chunks from freeminds') on the Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding

Thanks for trying to be helpful, even if you aren't. Please comment on the talk page first before wielding the mighty, wonderful, revert button. -Stevertigo 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop POV-pushing in the Portal namespace. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the

Article Wizard

.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cordoba House

Speedy deletion nomination of Stop Islamisation of America

A tag has been placed on Stop Islamisation of America, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

propaganda use

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the

Article Wizard

.

Thank you.

Under the

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page

explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria

for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Vinie007 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Your cartoon of Mohammed

This image of yours violated

WP:NPOV and had no place being placed here in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day nor in its gallery, (as you did here).

The guidelines governing what pictures are suitable for inclusion in the gallery couldn’t be clearer. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a free-for-all community graffiti wall for you to use as a vehicle to express your free-speech rights.

Given the above threads on this talk page and repeated warnings, you appear to be using this account for a single-purpose dedicated to pushing a particular point of view on religion-based articles. This is a clear and persistent violation of Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines. Please stop or you will be banned. Greg L (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the peanut gallery: I liked your cartoon; it's well-drawn and made me smile because I happened to see it shortly after reading the article on

talk) 06:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Indef block

I told you before not to sock again. In addition to that, you have disruptive POV issues that are blockable. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammed21.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered,

Wikipedia:Files 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. —Bkell (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]