User talk:Jim Burton

Appeal
I have decided after some time, to appeal my indefinite block.  Jim ♥ Burton   13:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would strongly recommend you to appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee; failing that, you can try contacting Jimbo Wales or the Wikimedia Foundation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was aware that a few bans that followed mine were treated in a similar way, although my talk page was never locked. I did contact the arbcom after it was suggested as one solution, although they never responded. Hence my appeal here instead.  Jim ♥ Burton   14:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mike - especially as the ban was issued by an ArbCom member. If you would like someone to post your appeal on WP:RFAR, just say so here; if you prefer you can email arbcom-l[[Image:Nospam at.svg|13px| -at- ]]lists.wikimedia.org with your appeal. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be difficult for one admin to handle this request without carrying a heavy burden. If unblocked, there will be debate. If block is kept, why is one admin's opinion sufficient as this request would be removed from the board and possibly not seen by anyone except those who watchlist this user (which may represent a biased statistical sample). Will seek AN advice. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It strikes me from the unblock reason that Jim hasn't changed at all. Surely advocating the right of pedophiles to self-identify in such a vehement manner on a publicly watched page like Jimbo's, basically saying he wouldn't take no for an answer, as well as editing the main space in a very POV SPA way, explains the block. If he were to come back admitting it isn't okay to defend endlessly in wikipedia the right of pedophiles to self-identify (see WP:NOT) and that he wanted to edit non-pedophile articles I would strongly support lifting the ban (which is against disruptive editing, not t e editor himself) but Jim appears to want to be unblocked to pursue exactly the same path as before. There is an extremely heated debate at Deletion review/Adult-child sex right now and unblocking Jim and then having him rushing off to participate in said debate would be extremely unhelpful to the heat in that debate, indeed I wonder if it is that debate that has inspired Jim to ask to be unblocked at this particular time. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, SqueakBox. I was not aware of this recent debate that you just pointed me to, but of course, I would be happy to take part in it, if I were unblocked in time. There are so many new names in the debate. I think that by "extremely unhelpful" you may in fact mean "not compatible with my POV", but who knows, we're well accustomed to these small but mighty rhetorical wars, are we not?


 * As for your claims, can you please point towards anything that would suggest I wouldn't take no for an answer, or that my editing lead to unbalanced passages or articles? I feel that this was one of the major problems with a near-majority of editors which included yourself, and that was primarily why I edited stricken articles such as Pro-pedophile activism so much. If I am to be unblocked, I would probably continue to edit these articles, and a few more that I have ventured into reading since I was banned. But for me, this is really of no weight, as the decision should be taken over the style of my editing as opposed to what I edited. If the latter is a guide to affiliation, I would be (as I am) banished like Tom O'Carroll, and you (as you are not) would be treated like some edgy Bill Andriette figure.  Jim ♥ Burton   20:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response, Jim. I think if you were to be unblocked I would happily discuss these issues at greater length but until then I wont be looking for the diffs in Jimbo's old archives etc. I would also point out that if you created another account and just edited non-pedophile articles that I am not sure anyone would want to prevent you doing that, I certainly wouldn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to Ryan for making the nature of this block clear. As arbcom have been privately unresponsive, I think that I shall have to pursue the WP:RFAR course of action suggested by Stifle. I would appreciate if one of you could start that process rolling for me.  Jim ♥ Burton   19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Jim, this appeal has to take place off wiki (sorry, I should have made myself clear to you up above). Email the arbitration committee, and if you feel like you've got no joy via that route, try emailing Jimbo again with an appeal.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hanging Basket Tree
An editor has nominated Hanging Basket Tree, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lindsay Ashford (activist)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Lindsay Ashford (activist). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Lindsay Ashford (activist). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Anti-pedophile activism
I have nominated Anti-pedophile activism, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Anti-pedophile activism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ~ Homologeo (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)