en User talk:Jimintheatl

Not interested in arguing with idiots.Jimintheatl (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beck's claim, Dunn's hero

I put a section on the Anita Dunn Talk page to discuss this issue. Cheers -- Jwesley₇₈ 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to state "WP:BOLD" every time you modify the article. That only works the first time you make a change. After that "BOLD" change, discussion should be made until a consensus is found. And no one is accusing Dunn of being a Maoist. I certainly don't think that. My quotes were simply to show that this "controversy" isn't covered only by Fox and Beck. Jwesley₇₈ 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that obviously ridiculous charges deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia? Inclusion with no attempt to address their foolishness? We report, you decide?Jimintheatl (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need to come to some sort of compromise. Is there any way we can meet in the middle? We've just been going back-and-forth and not really affecting eachother's viewpoint. Any suggestions? Cheers - Jwesley₇₈ 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent Vice

Jim, please see my comment to you on Inherent Vice:Talk. Malvenue (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you . . .

for the compliment concerning Arguing with Idiots. I appreciate it. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note

Hi. Since I mentioned your name/activity at this AN/I (regarding another editor), I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Jimintheatl. You have new messages at Akerans's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Civility warning

Please be advised that your recent editing history is laden with numerous violations of WP:CIVIL and personal attacks. You have been blocked for this before. Continuing this behavior will likely lead to a long-term block. Toddst1 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly ever agree with Jimintheatl, but that block was bordering on absurd. Fast on the button much? Soxwon (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beck

Hi. Just a note to let you know I have reverted you edit to Glenn Beck since I do not feel that the wording is acceptable for a BLP. Please see my comments on the talk page of the article for further details and suggestions as to how the issue could be resolved. regards, _wjemather ^bigissue 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Killing Patton. 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. slakr^\ talk / 17:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've exhausted my good faith here. You've made it clear that your only intent is to deliberately compromise the integrity of the project. Until you can explain your recent edits, I have blocked this account. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 29 March 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was born in Waterbury. A relative sent me a copy of the Waterbury Observer magazine which lists Karen West Pettit. I also supplied a link which replicates the Observer's article. I don't see what the big deal is, as other people of "minor" fame are also listed. But, fine, I promise never to add Pettit to the article again. I swear. I have never been accused of vandalism; previous blocks have been for edit warring on politics.

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed the reason for your block, which is the deliberate addition of hoax material to Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 30 March 2016 (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.

How is it hoax material? It was in a magazine published in Waterbury. It was in the cite I provided, which now appears to be a dead link. User: Jimintheatl Google Waterbury Observer Karen Pettit and you will find Waterbury, Explained, which previously listed Karen Pettit. Now it is a dead link. Have I ever deliberately added hoax material? No. Check my history. User: Jimintheatl

We're not stupid. The Waterbury, Explained link was to a mirror of Wikipedia from when the hoax crap was last added to Wikipedia. You're just digging your hole deeper. Talk page access revoked for wasting our time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jimintheatl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]