User talk:Jerimee

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

:) Jerimee 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Sam Brownback. 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.

Heimstern Läufer 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a six month absence, you return to the Mackinac Center page and start changing it to reflect your views? I've had something on its Talk page since December explaining why I think your revisions are biased. Why haven't you attempted to find consensus on this? MKil 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Hi did you take this photo?Genisock2 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes Jerimee 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for letting me know.Genisock2 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have moved some material that referenced Zoominfo to the talk page. This isn't a reliable source. Please feel free to replace this material once you have found a better citation. All the best Tim Vickers 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Berverly_perdue_nc_politician.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I sure will. :) Good luck, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerimee. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Publication history of Whole Earth Catalog and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Publication history of Whole Earth Catalog, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jerimee! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, Merge this back into the main article !. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history of Whole Earth Catalog, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

StarryGrandma (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]