User talk:Jimintheatl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] RE: Hal Turner, Sean Hannity, blah blah

I'd appreciate it if you would stop fighting over the Hal Turner article while I straighten things out. Edit warring is a blockable violation of policy, so please don't break the three-revert rule. You already have, but I won't block you as I'm presuming you didn't know about it; just don't violate it again. Thanks, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right; it is important to mention the matter, because having the second largest talk show in the world's most powerful nation be a mouthpiece for a neo-Nazi is quite a noteworthy subject. I've sourced the page and added some clarifying bits; if you have anything else to add, feel free to do so.

Oh, and in the future, should anyone revert you for a reason you can't see, don't revert back; instead, contact them. If you don't receive a response, contact me. This way it'll be easy to resolve the conflict. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You did well in not reverting Asher, keep it up. Now, I can't technically mediate because I'm involved in the matter, which could make me biased. However, speaking as an editor, I'm going to see if I can dig up enough material to create a "controversy" section or something of the sort in the Hannity article. Also, it may be worth mentioning it on the show's article, too. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bill O'Reilly

I did not violate the 3RR. My first edit was not a revert. Even if I had, you are inserting Original Research within a BLP issue, which is not a 3RR issue. 3RR covers content, not violation of WP Policies. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis of Material is a form of Original Research, and your accusations against me on the request for editor assistance are not a good way to deal with conflict. False allegations will not serve you well. As I have had my differences with Blaxthos in the past, I still acknowledge when I have made mistakes, as he has done with me. Arzel (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for assistance

Regarding this request, I will offer what little advice I can. First off, Arzel did not violate WP:3RR, from what I can tell. I don't know if I buy his original research argument. I fail to see where there is any defamatory statements, so his WP:BLP assertion carries no weight. I am trying to wait and see what the rest of the community (of which you are a part) thinks. I advise that you make sure to avoid trolling or being disruptive. Also, I may not be the best person to ask for assistance. I have often stood up to Arzel's policy shopping, and I make no secret of my lack of good faith with regard to his arguments (ie I don't take his assertions as correct without verification). That being said, he's had valid points in the past, which I readily concede when I'm wrong. You should probably wait and see what consensus forms. Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. If you are the user, please log in under that account and proceed to make the changes. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not use edit wars in lieu of discussion

You know the "talk" aspect of pages is for dicussion purposes. If you wish to discuss some aspect, please go to talk and discuss it. Your consistant edit reverting without discussion makes it difficult to work constructively with you, as you are currently doing on the BOR page. Arzel (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I value spelling.Jimintheatl (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent attitude shows there is no point in debating with you. Your flippant responses show me that you are not interested in working in a cooperative manner. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You've never shown an interest in debate.Jimintheatl (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

I put a "resolved" tag at ANI since no editing has happened since I filed the report. For what it's worth, I've been in your position before where there seems to be no reason not to include an edit but there are many who resist it. It was a little frustrating but I got over it and moved on. Anyway, consensus is what is used to determine what is included and what's not even if there is no real policy violation sometimes. Sometimes it is decided if the content is "encyclopedic" enough to be included. MrMurph101 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New ANI thread and warning

Hi Jim,

From looking at your talk page and contributions, it seems that you have engaged in a fairly long-term pattern of edit-warring, personal attacks, and generally disruptive behavior. Since none of the warnings above seem to have taken, I am telling you now that further contentious editing will result in a block to prevent further disruption. If that doesn't take, then successive blocks will be longer.

While I understand that you are editing in some areas that are likely to be fairly contentious and heated at times, all editors are required to maintain civility in order to foster collaboration. Please do what you need to in order to keep your cool, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions. --jonny-mt 06:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks, refactoring of other users' comments, and general tendentious editing.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. jonny-mt 13:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing other users' comments in a deletion discussion, as you did here, is unacceptable. Please use this time to consider new approaches to editing on Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim, I'm asking you again to stop making snide remarks about other editors as you did here. Focus on the content, not the contributors--ad hominem arguments have no place on Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And the ad hominem attacks against me? Those are acceptable? Jimintheatl (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larissa Kelly

I had been rooting for Larissa. But, just as one shouldn't call attention to the fact that a pitcher is throwing a no-hitter, one should refrain from highlighting an impressive run on Jeopardy. Cursed by an arrogant narcissist? Probably not, but who's to say?Jimintheatl (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)