User talk:Jimintheatl

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

Beck's claim, Dunn's hero
I put a section on the Anita Dunn Talk page to discuss this issue. Cheers --  Jwesley 78 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.  Jwesley 78 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 -  Jwesley 78 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

And thank you . ..

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

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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

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:. 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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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 to this page. Kuru  (talk)  03:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)