User talk:Jerimee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] your POV edits to ACORN article
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. In particular, do not remove references to material such as court documents which don't support your POV. Argyriou (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
No offense, but don't be warning me about three revert rule violations when you violate it yourself. You reverted the Mackinac Center page three times, too, so if I'm up for a banning then you are, too. MKil 14:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil
- No, it works like this:
- I add a paragraph
- You revert it (1M)
- I restore it (1J)
- You revert it (2M)
- I restore it (2J)
So if you continue to delete work that doesn't support your POV, you are in violation of a rule that is designed to prevent non-constructive back and forth. It's silly for us to spend our time reverting, when there are much better ways to improve this article and others. Jerimee 19:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No, if you continue to add inaccurate information, then I'd say that's a case of you violating the 3RR. However, as you say, there are better ways to improve this article. MKil 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)MKil
:) Jerimee 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Query on your minimum wage contributions and Debatepedia.com
Noticed your good contributions on the "minimum wage article". A number of wiki users have been working on a similar article on Debatepedia.com - Minimum Wage in the United States Debate. Just thought you might be interested. Loudsirens 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ACORN
I don't know if your most recent edits are POV or not. They are substantive deletions/additions of information that has been debated, but you have provided no reason. Rkevins82 18:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Huh??? You have gall!!!!! 3RR on me??? When you have 18RR????
Dear Jerimee: You left this note in the most recent edit history: (cur) (last) 17:50, 22 February 2007 Jerimee (Talk | contribs) (see what wikipedia is not, or discussion, or 3R rule, or general decency) All I can say is: What gall!!! You violated 3RR first. Now, if you want I will contact an admin right now and I will agree to be blocked for my edits, but of course this will mean that you will get blocked also. Keep in mind that 3RR applies to both you and me. It is not a one-way street where it applies to everyone on Wikipedia, except Jerimee. Look, I know that you want to censor info from the Sam Brownback. But you have to compromise. I have left in a series of your edits, but you have been unwilling to compromise--especially on the Brownback quote as it concerns his work as a broadcaster. We both know why you want that quote out of the article. Once it is out then you will remove Brownback's claim that he was once a broadcaster all together. In the edit history and on the talk for the article there are several comments by you where you have stated that believe that Brownback pads his resume. That is your opinion and you are attempting to push that opinion onto the article, POV pushing. Please stop.--Getaway 18:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please do not leave Uncivil comments on my talk page
Jerimee: The following is a comment that you left on my talk page today: == please try to follow some of the rules == The 3R rules and the What Wikipedia Is Not rules are pretty good. I know you are aware of them, but maybe you can read them over again. It can't hurt . . . Jerimee 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC). Let me begin by stating that I have been very, very civil to you. I have compromised with and agreed with you on edits that I did not agree with, including removal of the adoption information about Sam Brownback's children. I agreed to leave in the criticism of Brownback by the ACSU, even though the criticism only applies to one month, January 2007, and it probably does NOT meet notability. These are just two examples of where I have compromised. Now, as I have stated before and I will repeat here, you have stated on the Brownback talk page repeatedly that you personally believe that Brownback pads his resume and you have taken it upon yourself to rid the Brownback article of any reference to Brownback comment that he was once a broadcaster. You have taken out that quote several times (way over the 3RR, which also applies to you, not just me) and we all know why you want to do that so you then remove the broadcaster reference from the article entirely. That is called imposing your own personal POV on the article and that violates Wikipedia. Also, refer to "What Wikipedia is Not". That is good point of instruction for you also. One particular statement there applies your situation: Wikipedia is NOT Censored: WP:NOT#CENSOR. You cannot remove information just because you simply personally do not like it. You have not provided an independent third-party reliable source for your personal opinion that Brownback pads his resume. Please see WP:RS. Now, the last Wikipedia rule that I would direct you to is the rule about being civil to your fellow editors. Please see WP:CIVIL. The comment above was not written in a civil tone and I am now asking that you keep your comments toward me in the realm of civility as Wikipedia requires. Have a good day!--Getaway 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
Heimstern Läufer 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
