User talk:MrTownCar


 * }

October 2012
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jung Myung Seok without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Helpful edits of Article on Jung Myung Seok
Thank you for your helpful contributions to the Jung Myung Seok page. Unfortunately there was some vandalism done to the page in mid December by Shii. If you could help me keep a watchful eye over this article as well as the Provdidence (religious movement) page I would appreciate it. Macauthor (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Providence (religious movement)
There is more than enough evidence to support the claims on Providence (religious movement). Discuss this on talk:Providence (religious movement) or WP:BLPN before removing. Jim1138 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, MrTownCar. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Providence (religious movement), you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Editing with a COI
If you have a conflict of interest, instead of editing the article directly, use wp:edit request, if that fails, wp:dispute resolution, then wp:blpn Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I second that notion. Sam Sailor Sing 09:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic ban proposal. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite block
I am blocking this account indefinitely following an ANI discussion; this is the diff for my closing statement. Please review it carefully in case you are considering an unblock request. A formal, templated notification will be placed below. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I dont follow the concensus. 3 people support topic ban (jim1138, harizotoh9 and third person cant recall name) and I thought two people sam sailor and sysop name escapes me) support site ban.  I have previously contributed to a mustang article under the Roush section. How can I prove myself if not given the chance? I will accept topic ban but that was never on the table as a choice for me to accept.MrTownCar (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see seven supports on the ANI notice (the last of many) that supports a topic ban and/or a block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept a topic ban but it is not the same as site ban since I have in fact contributed to another article. Secondly peter Dailey is the purveyor of jmscult.com and he cast a vote in this ban? That is the ultimate COI. folks need to pay real close attention to what is going on here.MrTownCar (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fortunately I answer to a Holy God. My dignity is not denigrated by the actions of anonymous people at wikipedia. I have made mistakes here but have tried to learn from them.   My heartfelt desire was to make this article truthful and informative.  However, the ignorant and uninformed powers that be decided that I can no longer contribute to this page and have blocked me indefinitely.  I see no hope in the immediate future but pray that someday this article will be written with no hyperbole and clear reflection of the teachings of JMS. His love for the Trinity and saving lives is unparalleled on this Earth.MrTownCar (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)