User talk:Cjmooney9

George Zimmerman's family physician

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. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

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)[reply]

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 80.44.182.214 (talk · contribs), you seem to have left the discussion. (You've said you're also 80.254.147.156 (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 80.44.182.214, 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)[reply]

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synthesis and WP:Edit warring at the Pedophilia article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

October 2014

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

September 2017

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Virtue signalling for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How was your day today? I went to lunch, then watched a movie Cjmooney9 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at /r/The Donald. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steve Bannon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 23:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Steve Bannon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Grayfell (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cjmooney9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’ve been targeted many times by aggressive editors, for making changes to the pages of alt-right media figures. No conversations about the changes, no debates - just immediate blocks. It’s well known that Wikipedia has a massive diversity problem and that 90% of editors are white males. And I think I’m a victim of that lack of diversity. And these alt right figures probably have a lot of white male editors brigading to protect th pages

Decline reason:

So you're saying that our lack of diversity made you vandalize pages like this? Max Semenik (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alt right Editors

Lesson - don’t try and edit the pages of alt right hero’s, when 90% of Wikipedia editors are young white males........ Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming others for your own blatant vandalism just lost you the ability to edit this talk page. I mean, this edit changing Steve Bannon's full name to "Stephen Kareem Cosmo Bannon", falsifying the names of his parents, and claiming that his father was a male stripper? Should you reflect on the disruption you are causing, decide to stop your vandalism, and believe you can become a constructive contributor, please see WP:UTRS (but bear in mind that the folks at UTRS are no more stupid than those warning and blocking you here on this page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) We don't care about the guy, we care about the encyclopedia and its policies, including in this case, WP:BLP and WP:VAND. That you would believe (or claim) that editors can vandalize articles of people they don't like suggests a WP:NOTHERE attitude... This idea that most editors support the alt-right is quite unusual... —Paleo Neonate – 18:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]