User talk:JimKaatFan

JimKaatFan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JimKaatFan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1960 World Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walk-off (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Foreman

Thanks for finding another source for him being ordained, but you were incorrect that the previous source didn't support it. It says He experienced a religious conversion and the following year was ordained at the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in Houston. Schazjmd (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that, I guess. I thought I read through the whole thing and did not see that line. My mistake. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All is well since you went to the trouble to find another source. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, wasn’t attacking you. No hurtful or divisive language was used. Constructive criticism. Just asking for some help that’s all. As for the edit, which I did concentrate on, how don’t the sources support the material? Have you heard the versions? SpaceFox99 (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the video doesn't support the text that was in the article that I removed. The existence of the video only supports one thing - there's a video that exists. That's trivial. If a reliable source had written about the video, saying, in effect, the assertions that I had removed, that would be a reason to include that material. But without that, it's just editors adding their own personal takes on the subject. And that's not what Wikipedia is for. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way "Your edits are overwhemingly net-negative"[1] isn't constructive criticism. Neither is sarcasm such as "perhaps help people out and find a source, rather than just deleting everything". I delete things that aren't supported by reliable sources. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with Wikipedia, not me. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you’ve misinterpreted what I had to say. I do not write sarcastically. Seriously; help us out and try and find a source (perhaps I’m mistaken and you did do this, in which case I’m sorry) instead of just deleting lots. WP:AGF, please. My original comment was really not an attack; only you’d know why you took it as one. This seems to be a common thing on Wikipedia these days; people assume they’re being attacked; this situation was by no means a WP:HUNT. I, at least, am trying to be genuine. The video exists; you do not need a source describing what is in the video of the information reciprocated is as simple as it was. If a photo was taken of a cow, you do not need multiple sources saying “there is a cow in the picture” to verify it’s contents. Moreover, no synthesis has taken place, and therefore the simple information stands. Further, I gave references other than the video. I cited the multiple versions on discogs, and for extra reliability, an Australian media archive website, listing the multiple versions. The actual subject + reference source + reliable source. I do not have a problem with you. Thank you for the valuable time you spend trying to help Wikipedia; maybe try and make that time even more valuable! Thanks again, have a good day! SpaceFox99 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Your edits are overwhemingly net-negative" is an attack. "perhaps help people out and find a source, rather than just deleting everything" is sarcasm. Just because you come to my page later and try to say "oh no, I wasn't really attacking you, why are you so offended?" doesn't make those things any less true. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh)... they weren't an attack. Most of your edits are negative - who said that's a bad thing? Just means maybe you could help the problem? (not an attack). I did not use irony to mock you through sarcasm; no irony is there. The intent was genuine. Don't know why you would think otherwise. I repeat what I sad above... As for the actual page, I've provided the reasons as to why my edits were proper. SpaceFox99 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like how I explained that, after attacking me, you came here afterwards and claim your words weren't an attack, and then you proceeded to do the exact same thing again. And added a condescending (Sigh). Stop lying. How about this - stay off my talk page for the rest of eternity. The problems with the material I removed on the article were crystal clear, and if you have a problem with those, address them on the article talk page. Not here. Bye. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fitch Poole

Hello! I created Fitch Poole's article. He might not be the most notable person, but, it seems to me like he meets the criteria. Perhaps, that's because there isn't much info about him. Thanks! Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'll try to expand his article with some other sources Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to. So far the only sources on there are gravesite directions. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, there are other sources too Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Name one reliable secondary source in there besides the obits and gravesites. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jump5

I suggest that you take it to an RfC. I have been blocked many times because I have edited many times. If you ever conflate the two again, I will take you to ANI for making unfounded personal attacks. The two do not follow from each other. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been blocked many times because I have edited many times" hmmm I don't think those two follow each other :) JimKaatFan (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hi. Have you ever read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? It's one of the best ways to reach consensus and is good editing behavior. When someone disagrees with a change you'd like to make, instead of reverting, the best practice is to discuss the issue. Please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? The part where it says "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." If I were lazy, and I was just removing things without checking to see if they're sourced, then that would be wrong, and a "citation needed" should be added instead, fine. But I am actually taking the time to see if there's any material available to verify what the material claims. In this case, there isn't any. As I said before, if there's a reliable source somewhere, then sure, re-add the opinion that was in the article before.

It might also interest you to know that the material was added years ago without a source, here. In fact, the entire paragraph was added unsourced, mainly the product of the editor's brain that wrote it. So I'm inclined to remove the whole thing - after I look for sources for the rest of it, of course. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1989 World Ice Hockey Championships

I am now on the fence over whether the mention about the European Championship format belongs as a small note or if it belongs at all after looking a lot closer at things. The European Championships used to have content on the main World Championship page but that is going back at least ten years, don't know why it is not mentioned at all. If you want to know more I would suggest German Wikipedia as there was much more interest in the European Championships there.18abruce (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a real source for the main European Championship article: this book. I have a copy, it's pretty comprehensive. If you want a copy, I can email it to you. I just thought that would be better than some personal webpage that went defunct. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely better, I would welcome a copy of that for sure. One problem that could use some better sourcing, which I was going to fix several years ago and then forgot, is the 1966 championships. They were retroactively changed at some point in the late 80's or early 90's. Müller's book touches on it, and I know a retired user had some more details, but I can't remember exactly. I am overwhelmed with distance learning for special needs kids right now and do not foresee spending much time online other that for awhile. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LILCO vs Trio Grande

Came across the discussion you posted at Talk:List of ice hockey line nicknames from the link at WikiProject Ice Hockey. I've been working intermittently this week on overhauling the dog's breakfast that was the Mike Bossy article, so the names of the lines have been pretty fresh from my online searches, so I redid those two lines with contemporary sources. The SI source that misnamed the LILCO members was weird, but was from decades later, when hindsight seems to be fuzzy. Harris was a big deal until Bossy came along, and I was a kid on Long Island (and a Rangers fan) when this was happening! Echoedmyron (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely included Billy Harris, look here for example. That card set has several "lines" but probably would need further verification maybe.18abruce (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I took a look, looks good. I was trying to clean up the entire article (and it was a mess), it took a lot longer than I thought it would, so that particular line, I think I found that one article that had both line nicknames for the same three guys, so I just collapsed it into one entry. Glad you found better sourcing than I did, and waaaay better sourcing than was there before. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your recent editing history at Henry_Masterson_III shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
Your most recent revert is in violation of WP:3RR and now against the consensus that you so demanded. I would highly recommend undoing your revert. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was you canvassing, in violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing, in order to get a favorable "third opinion". Then the person you recruited to weigh in became part of a Wikipedia:Tag team in order to circumvent the rules on edit warring. So you'll forgive me if I disregard this notice as what it is: a blatant attempt to bully me into removing a completely valid template. Don't harass me here any further, please, thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just a thought

some of your disputes in the basketball pages seem familiar. the tone of the ip is familiar as well. Specifically the way sources are used, or to be accurate, misused. And some of the expressions used are the same. It may be worth your while to check into sock puppets of User:Max Arosev, appears likely to me but I have been wrong about this before at least once.18abruce (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do I do that? JimKaatFan (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, looks like Djsasso took care of it. Thanks for pointing it out. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is one editor who just will not go away, and is sometimes correct. There are other banned users who come back but learn how to stay under the radar, this one invites confrontation for some reason. Rather frustrating but Djsasso has always been good about stepping in.18abruce (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (video game)

Hi! Your last edition of this page is not correct: the world in which the game takes place is really a cube (six faces). On the same page, in the Development section, this is said as indicated by the game developer and, naturally, by the players. The link to the Youtube video is not to confirm this fact but to view it. I request that you undo the edit. Thanks! JoaquinFerrero (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this was in the Development section as something the game author envisioned, but that's unsourced there as well. I searched for a source that mentioned "cubic world" or "cube world" in relation to this game and could not find one. Do you know of one? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I missed it the first read because he doesn't say "cubic world" in the interview. So I adjusted the text in the body. Also, since it's not even clear that he accomplished that goal, or what he even means by the term, I don't think it's accurate to describe the game that way in the lead. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also found the category that this game most closely resembles: a flip-screen game, albeit a confusing variant of such games, given the difficulty players had navigating the world. I'm going to try and see if any sources mention this genre. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Amerigo Vespucci (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florentine

Nicolás Mascardi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ligurian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Go block yourself. I'm adding sourced content and you are reverting it because of your political bias. Friendlygoris (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Friendlygoris. See this edit? It came from the same IP range that you used when trying to stalk my edits after I reverted your edit on Russian Five. It tracks to St. Petersburg. See this edit? Same exact content, only you registered an account first. Then you registered this latest account, and made the exact same edit again. Do you think I'm going to one day not notice you doing this? Forget it. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some "professional" stalking on your part. I'm adding sourced content. Friendlygoris (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging 18abruce and DJSasso. It's clearly the same guy that was hounding my hockey edits, and Olympic edits, and you've both had experience with him - 18abruce first pointed him out as Max Arosev. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could care less about your pathetic efforts to remove sourced content. You're a dumbass who doesn't understand that referenced material should be kept regardless of the fact who added it. That's too hard for you to comprehend, I know. Friendlygoris (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks very much like him. The tone, and how obvious it was that the 'source' was not even accessible, make it appear more like trolling frankly.18abruce (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad you came along and helped, 18abruce, especially since, as Friendlygoris helpfully pointed out, I am a "dumbass". Christ, it's a wonder I know how to type an IP address into a search engine, I'm so stupid. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russian Five

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Russian Five you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! I think my course of action will be to review another GA nomination, and make that nominator aware of your GA and FA nominations; that way there's no hint of conflict of interest - not that I think you had that in mind, but just to make sure outside observers don't raise that as an issue. I also recently completed another review, and I will make that nominator aware of your nominations. Thanks again. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amerigo Vespucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Florentine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russian Five

The article Russian Five you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Russian Five for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

That was a nice catch. I have done some followup.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That didn't even occur to me. Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we have a small victory in the battle agains COI and self-promotion! I hope you saw the SPI determining that Art Lover and Forever Art and Jonathan Kis-Lev were all one and the same.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have now. Thanks for the update! JimKaatFan (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repton

Just so you know, someone found the reference for you. Cheers. Cassianto^Talk 15:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

In May, you changed the etymology in [2] from the commonly accepted "σκλάβος" to "skyleúo". It seems like "skyleúo" is an older, discredited etymology, and sources like https://www.dwds.de/wb/etymwb/Sklave support the "σκλάβος" etymology. I wasn't able to find the original "Kluge, F. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 1891, s.v. "Sklave"." on the internet, but the translation of it here also seems to support "σκλάβος" as well.

FreeFull (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Yagudin

Greetings! Perhaps a short remark in the "Personal Life" block makes sense, but some users still find it necessary to write about it in the "Short Description"(like this). And that's something I certainly don't approve of, and I'll fix it.

I must have been talking to the wall. Sad. And I don't quite understand your desire to pay so much attention to this topic. One note should be enough.

In the future, sign your posts. Also, this discussion belongs on the Talk:Alexei Yagudin page, not here. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 26

I've started a review here. Best Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, reading the deletion review policies, I didn't think it would go anywhere, but worth a try. What's the minimum amount of time for another afd? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pepper spray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lafayette Square (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

magic hat

Hi, I'm the person who made the edits on 7/1 relocating the brewery to Rochester, based on this follow up article from Seven Days - [1] I had also included this as a reference, but I see that in your revisions that the link was removed. What information do you have that leads you to conclude that they haven't moved yet? Thanks. Bostonbeergeek (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bostonbeergeek: From that article: "Forty-three of Magic Hat's 46 Vermont employees will lose their jobs when the brewery moves to Rochester." If it had moved already, the line would've said, "have lost" their jobs and "when the brewery moved". It's clearly talking about the future. It might be the very near future, sure, but it's still the future. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/magic-hat-leaves-behind-a-transformed-craft-beer-industry-in-vermont/Content?oid=30705701.

Edit warring

I count that you are at 6 reverts over 24hrs on the Tucker Carlson Tonight article. Please self revert or this will go to 3RRN. Springee (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just trolling now? Or is math not your strong suit? JimKaatFan (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification [[3]] Springee (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  –Darkwind (talk) 10:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the diffs, they're at the ANEW report linked above. Please remember that 3RR applies to any reverting of the work of other editors, even if it's not all the same material, unless it qualifies for a 3RR exemption. –Darkwind (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting that my block be lifted. I genuinely did not know that the 3RR rule referred to total number of reverts in a 24-hour period (I thought it was for reverting the same material) and after reading the policy more carefully, I can see I was clearly in the wrong and will not go down that road again. I furthermore pledge not to make any edits to the related Tucker Carlson articles until any and all talk page discussions have been completed, even if those discussions end in the next 24 hours. I will restrict my work in the meantime to other projects. Thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block is expired, as I discovered when I went to shorten it to "time served". --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the edits that User:JimKaatFan reverted (edits #4, #5, #6) were by the sockpuppet User:MetaTracker. I think it's reasonable to alter the block into a "warning" given that the user seemed both to misunderstand how 3RR worked, is relatively inexperienced in editing high-profile controversial topics (where 3RR kicks in a lot), and was in large part edit-warring with someone who was gaming the system. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Godfather

Hello, I'm Gareth Griffith-Jones. I wanted to let you know that I have edited your recent contribution to The Godfather.
Now reads, Undid the latest revision of 06:39, August 23, 2020. Altered the meaning. Now copy-edited: ... The scenes set in Las Vegas were not shot on location because there were insufficient funds. ...
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gareth Griffith-Jones: I'm confused as to why you would call my edit "not constructive", when you didn't actually revert it, but just adjusted it further so that it was clearer than the original wording from before I changed it. In other words, I improved it and you improved it further. Why would you say "has been undone because it is not constructive"? JimKaatFan (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. No offence meant. You can see that I have edited my post. Hope all is okay between us now. Please let me know. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, no worries, I was just confused. Thanks. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi JimKaatFan! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should this IP editor be blocked?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation at Tucker Carlson

JimKaatFan, I'm copying Awilley as they are the admin who put this restriction on your account [[4]]. On Sept 23 I changed you changed "attempt to stoke fears about" to "cast doubts on" (per NYT) as "stoke fears about" is not IMPARTIAL and doesn't adequately summarize the phrasing used by the various sources cited. You reverted that edit on Sept 24th. After a talk page discussion [[5]] I restored the NYT verbiage on the 25th. That text was stable until earlier today when you changed it back. I mention this to establish that your edit earlier today which changed the text back to "stoke fears" [[6]] is a revert, not a new edit. Thus it puts you at 1RR (the other edits done at the same time are part of the same revert). I reverted two of your four edits. You then reversed one of my reverts. That puts you at 2RR for the day [[7]]. In addition to the second revert, you also went on to attack me as an editor with this talk page comment [[8]], "It was immediately reverted by Carlson's biggest defender, and remover of all things negative from this article, Springee." You could have at least pinged me when saying something like that. If you self revert and strike your talk page comments I won't take this any further. Springee (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted three separate changes that I made. I reverted one of your reverts. The contorted logic that you're using to somehow imply I've violated 1RR with my 1 edit, while you made 3 reverts, is frankly quite amazing. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimKaatFan, I've partial blocked you from editing the Tucker Carlson article and talk page. Reasons for the block include:

• Misrepresenting sources: in this edit you said "right from the source's wording" when in fact it was the opposite. I did a ctrl+f for "stoke" and "fear" on each of the 4 sources and couldn't find anything. Meanwhile the NYTimes source supported the "cast doubt" wording in its first sentence.
• NPOV: It's not a good look to use the word "bigoted" in Wikipedia's voice [9]
• The slow edit warring thing Springee mentioned above
• Your behavior on the talk page, attacking other editors like in this comment.

You can request an unblock any time from me or another administrator, but I expect you to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fixing it. You might want to see the WP:Guide to appealing blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russian Five

The article Russian Five you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Russian Five for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Russian Five

The article Russian Five you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Russian Five for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kncny11 -- Kncny11 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I am currently partially blocked - I am blocked from editing the Tucker Carlson article. After taking a break from Wikipedia, I understand that it was wrong to continue fighting with another editor about what details to include on that article, and to revert his reversions. Subsequently, I continued the bad behavior, with another revert after a warning from an admin, who then instituted the partial block. The admin, Awilley, had various reasons for the block which he explained to me. It is my intention to stick with non-political articles in the future, as making changes to political articles seem fraught with danger. I do intend, however, to still make changes to any article where I see an obvious punctuation or grammar error, or vandalism, etc, and I'd like to be able to do that on the Tucker Carlson page if I see an obvious, non-controversial edit needs to be made. In summary, I'm saying that the partial block is no longer necessary because I understand why I was blocked, and I am focused on only making positive contributions from here on out. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I find this request satisfactory, and as such I will remove the partial block. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Your recent editing history at Juice WRLD shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're the one that changed a long-stable sentence, and refused to discuss the change even after I providing sourcing for the long-standing text as it was. As your tone in this edit was extremely uncivil (you said "For benefit of simpletons like yourself", among other things) I assume that you're not going to consider that previous wording as an option.

Dealing with the same topic with a different editor, here you said: "Clearly being a child is your problem. ... Relax, little boy... Gold star for trying though. Now run along unless you're going to be constructive".

To avoid further edit warring, and to avoid you belittling other editors any more, I started an RfC on the topic. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The discussion should be in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, you will not get—I mean a few—any response in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Just saying. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's a NPOV issue. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (VernoWhitney) recommended me to the page. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect

Hi, I saw you reverted the page BoywithUke back to a redirect. As far as I understand as per Wikipedia:Notability the topic is notable enough to warrant it's own article? I assume once it is rewritten with citations as a priority it is fine, or do you assume the topic is not relevant enough?

thanks --Mad1532 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad1532: I don't personally see any notability, although others may disagree. Regardless, you certainly can't claim notability and unilaterally remove the redirect if there are no sources in the text being added. My suggestion is to write a draft first, then publish the whole thing at once with sources for every line. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks for the advice; will try! Mad1532 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi JimKaatFan! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Can someone close this RfC?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hample

Yeah, I know the guy is a pox on society, but we have to follow the guidelines when it comes to the lead. The lead summarizes what is further explained later in the article. I had been meaning to trim that down before his latest antics, but just because he's a doofus doesn't mean the article shouldn't conform to WP:BLP standards. To be fair the entire controversy section is a little over the top already. Anyway, not trying to get in an edit war since we've worked well together in the past. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dropping it off my watchlist. The recent flurry of activity looks like a nightmare to me. I have some experience with that kind of thing here. No thanks. It's all yours. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Hample

Hi JimKaatFan, I just reverted this edit and wanted to ask you not to add it again but I can see you had already had this conversation with @Nemov: in September. I'm Assuming good faith but stop adding this to the lead after other editors remove it. This doesn't meet guidelines and there hasn't been any consensus to include it. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 45.159.249.180 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to quote the admin Cullen328 for his response to that "discussion": "IP editor, I looked at your diffs and several other recent edits by JimKaatFan, and none of them support your accusation that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. It seems that the two of you disagree about the best way to summarize what the sources say, but that's a routine content dispute, not anything that justifies your extreme accusations or a report to this noticeboard."

Seems resolved. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I have created an account and addressed your claims on the articles' talk pages. Regarding your reply, no this does not seem to have been resolved. I find your edits disruptive, and your edit summaries are misleading. Hopefully, now having an account I can engage in a more productive conversation regarding the content disputes in question. Xkpsy (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same (blocked) IP address 45.159.249.180 that was reverting my edits on Miracle on Ice? JimKaatFan (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a range block because that IP appears to be on a webhost. It has nothing to do with my individual edits on various IPs that I used while traveling before creating an account. Ranges can be used by tens of different editors, and I’m not responsible for them. Xkpsy (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just seems like an amazing coincidence that an IP was reverting my edits on Miracle on Ice while several different IPs, which you admit was you, were reverting my edits on Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Men's tournament and three other sports-related articles. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And he's blocked as a sock of Max Arosev. I thought I smelled a rat. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Dear JimKaatFan, Street art in Israel is a new entry by the blocked Jonathan Kis-Lev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.193.95 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of this message. You'll have to be more specific, and inform me why you're telling me this. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you initiated the delete discussion three years ago. Jonathan Kis-Lev has a particular purpose - to glorify himself in every way - and he is doing this in a very sophisticaded way - he is writting numerous entries about himself, his creations and about every subject he can push himself into (as you can notice here). He is an intelligent and hard-working person and who learned how to write in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.193.95 (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I sort of remember that. I'm not an expert in this area, and I don't edit very often anymore. My advice to you is to register an account, and make an administrator aware of the situation. Feel free to tag me in the discussion using a ping, but it might be a while before I see it. I glanced at the Street art in Israel article briefly, but it doesn't mention Kis-Lev. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey lines article

Hello! I see you deleted content from the ice hockey lines article. What exactly are the requirements for the article and where are they specified? – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 07:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Poriman55: The discussion is on the article's talk page. JimKaatFan (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]