User talk:Toddserveto
Discussion of ethics in education and among educators should be next project.
Messianic Judaism[edit]
Hello. Please read Messianic Judaism. Neither Jews nor Christians consider Messianic Judaism to be a form of Judaism.
Attempts to insert Messianic Judaism into articles about Judaism will be considered vandalism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Avi 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Recent edits to Brigitte Gabriel[edit]
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. While the content of your edits may be true, I have removed it because its depth or nature of detail are not consistent with our objectives as an encyclopedia. I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and hope you will familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not so we may collaborate in the future. Thank you! Chamith (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014[edit]
Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Brigitte Gabriel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 05:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Chamith (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014[edit]
Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Chamith (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
WHAT? There was nothing unreliable about my YouTube reference in the least! It was a VIDEO RECORDING of the SPEECH ITSELF---not some editorial or some sham, edited opinion piece. Precisely what was unreliable about it, and what are you judging by? This is starting to look like agendized vandalism on your part. You are determined to keep the bias in this article intact while keeping an actually link to the speech itself out, and that is NOT acceptable.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Brigitte Gabriel. Chamith (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Answer what I said to you. You are reverting back to and leaving intact a biased comment such as "In the original context of the inquirer trying to find a smart way of disarming ideologists," yet trying to prevent me from putting in unbiased, neutral language to set the record straight and allowing people to actually have access to the speech itself. You had my edit "re-reverted" and my link to the speech removed so fast I didn't even have time to inspect my edit and my source! I will be taking this to a higher authority and reporting you for vandalism if you do not stop preventing this article from being revised to take out the obvious bias.
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toddserveto, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Chamith (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
October 2014[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)Account Policy[edit]
It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively or have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny. Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts or people to support you should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publically and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.
Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Mike V • Talk 03:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)