User talk:Cjmooney9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

George Zimmerman's family physician[edit]

Hello, Cjmooney9. I found your edit summary on the Trayvon Martin page interesting. I haven't followed the case very closely. Who discredited the family physician's description of GZ's injuries after the incident? And, why wasn't the description allowed at the trial? Thanks. -- (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


As you're reverting at Madeleine McCann, this is to let you know about our WP:3RR policy, which advises against reverting the work of another editor three times in a row. Doing so can lead to a block. The only exceptions are vandalism and preventing violations of our Biographies of living persons policy, which your edits are violating. I would appreciate it if you stick to the talk page to prevent the need for a report. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the article was protected because the edits you made violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including on talk pages. The point of article protection is to make sure inappropriate edits aren't made to articles, and also to force editors to discuss rather than continue to add the edits. But unless you're also editing as (talk · contribs), you seem to have left the discussion. (You've said you're also (talk · contribs).)
In the absence of discussion the page ought to be unprotected. But anyone continuing to make those edits once protection is lifted is likely to find themselves facing sanctions. So I hope you will either return to the discussion, or signal that you're willing not to make those kind of edits again. Or, if you are also, then please let us know that it's you.
The page has to reflect the views of high-quality reliable sources in 2013, rather than views that were briefly held seven years ago and which turned out to be false (and very damaging). The article describes how reliable sources used to hold those views, but it has to make clear that they are no longer held. I hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you![edit]

Roadster 2.5 windmills trimmed.jpg A Tesla Roadster for you!
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring at the Pedophilia article[edit]

WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring are Wikipedia policies, and you can be WP:Blocked for violating both. You know the deal, which is why I have refrained from templating you on these matters. Not that I think, with your lack of comprehension regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines, WP:Don't template the regulars applies much to you anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I have made my argument quite clear at all times on the talk page. In fact I suspect the edit history will show that you are the person who has been constantly deleting things, and reverting things, without any explanation to why you have done it.

I said we should add something saying the popular definition is incorrect. You removed it numerous times.

I then wrote what the popular definition actually is (sexual interest in anyone under 18). You then deleted that is well.

You seem to be in rather odd position where you're unwilling to include, on the page, that the popular definition is technically incorrect. But are also unwilling to include the popular definition!

Please do not delete sections, without an explanation to why you have done it.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

All that you are doing is adding WP:Synthesis to the article and WP:Edit warring. Keep that up, and see what happens. My comments have been well stated in edit summaries and on the talk page, and are supported by sources in the article and by editors at the article. Yours are not. The article is already clear that the popular definition is incorrect (medically incorrect at least)!! It states that in the lead, and at other parts in the article, including the Misuse of medical terminology section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring against consensus to add your unsourced opinion is unhelpful. What are you hoping to achieve? You havent even provided a source to back up your claim so it remains your claim. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Pedophilia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN talk to me 14:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  De728631 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)