Hello, Cmmmm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Iotha05:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Al Qaeda Reader, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Al Qaeda Reader is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting The Al Qaeda Reader, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.CSDWarnBot23:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you have pasted text of copyrighted news articles into wikipedia articles. While you may use outside articles as sources of facts, you may not use them as sources of sentences. Thanks -- Diletante17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Pope Benedict XVI. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. E.g. --Kbh3rdtalk16:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Nephi Project, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Nephi Project. 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy of what I've posted at Talk:Temple (Latter Day Saints). Please examine policy links carefully that I've provided:
The video called "Between Heaven and Earth", which is being linked to from YouTube, is almost surely running afoul of copyright violation. The copyright for the video is owned by Bonneville Communications. There is nothing on the YouTube link that suggests that it has been placed there with permission or authorisation from the copyright owner. Thus, we should not be providing a link to the video. Please note that according to WP:COPYVIO, "[c]ontributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." Thanks.
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]
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]
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): Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
Continued disruption to JW articles without proper discussion will be brought to the attention of administrators.
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]
Please stop making unproductive edits to the JW controversies article.
No one is disputing that older Watchtower publications presented racist views, and these are already presented in the article.
I agreed that the Watchtower criticising Catholic views of racism during a period when they also made racist comments should be mentioned in the article. Feel free to add this, but make sure the wording is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
No verifiable racism has been established with regard to selecting members of the GB. Speculative opinions of 3rd parties is not evidence.
Arbitrarily wanting the race section higher in the article has no basis, and the other issues are more significant controversies relating to JWs. If you disagree, you need to discuss.
[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]
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]
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]
I have removed the execessive links to the 'freeminds' website that you added to Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses (as 79.209.72.119). The main freeminds site has been left in the list of critical sites. There is no need to reference several pages from the same site where the entire site reports alleged controversies about the religion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Stevertigo11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for uploading File:Taheri-azar letter.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
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 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]
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 criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please 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.
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 Geert Wilders, who I generally disagree with but he advocates what you drew. That said, I do agree with Greg L above that a political cartoon like that likely will not find an article on Wikipedia to call home. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Barack Obama. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Criticism of the Qur'an. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Cúchullain t/c 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
