User talk:Jim16

< User talk:Jim16/Archive01

I am innocent. Someone else from my house was responsible for the recent vandalism. Jim 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 27 April 2006 Mackensen blocked "66.17.116.148 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (persistent vandalism and sockpuppetry from non-mobile IP)

Note: Even if you do not want to unblock me at the moment, I understand. But could you please remove the indefinite block and block me for like a couple of months or something? Thanks. Jim 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONALLY NOTE: I HAVE ALSO HAD PRODUCTIVE EDITS RECENTLY. CHECK MY CONTRIBUTIONS. THANKS.

You burned me; I wanted to believe you had turned over a new leaf, but your history belies you, and your explanations. You have forgotten more than once who is who when making edits, as I demonstrated in my Request for CheckUser. The timing of "[s]omeone else from my house" is far too suspicious, and your history demonstrates a powerful "me against the rest of Wikipedia" attitude (do the edit summaries "blanked, you bastards", "blank, bastards. Go fuck yourselves" and "STOP FUCKING REVERTING MY EDITS, Y OU COCKSUCKERS! GO TO HELL, ALL OF YOU!" mean as much to you as they do to those of use for whom this project actually means a little something?). Mackensen blocked you, and it will be up to that user to consider any changes; all I can tell you is, were I the blocking admin, my response would be that you've had far too many chances, and said "go to hell, all of you" too many times. Radio Kirk talk to me 02:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reviewed, sorry no. --pgk^(talk) 09:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at evidence, sorry no -- Tawker 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and denied twice. Still no. Radio Kirk talk to me 19:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~You are not blocked.~~ [1] Stifle (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC) Oops. Anyway, WP:RCU#Jim16_et_al suggests not unblocking you. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Stifle just noted, the IP address is. As for the user's assertion that he has made productive edits, that's where the massive evidence of sockpuppetry comes in.

Jim16, pay careful attention to this, I'll only say it once: another user has been kind enough to nominate me as an administrator; if approved, my first act will be to reduce your block to 3 months if you accept that you've been blocked (and the reasons why) and stop making excuses for your behavior. You are not "innocent", and you must admit it (as in, no more "someone else from my house" BS). Then and only then would the possibility of leniency be considered. Radio Kirk talk to me 21:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RadioKirk! I do accept that I have been blocked because of the recent vandalism and sockpuppetry. The accounts of Elliott Johnson, Goat455, Jared Tidemann, and Policy Debator are all mine. Thank you for your compassion. Jim 22:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Presuming I'm approved, I'll reduce your block as promised. Understand, however, that the indefinite block could be reinstated at any time, depending on your future activity (and, because you've burned me once already, I'd jump on it with considerable dispatch). Your time off should be spent reevaluating why you're here in the first place, and how you see your future with Wikipedia; if you expect you'll return to the same puerility you've tended to demonstrate up to now, moving on would do yourself an even bigger favor than it would do us. Sorry to sound like a scolding parent, but that's how I see it. Radio Kirk talk to me 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very generous of you. I'll support this action should you desire to take it. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: with thanks to those users who have entrusted me with admin tools, I have reduced your block to 3 months as promised. I hope you have read and considered my posts above. We would like to see you rejoin this community as a productive editor; we hope you will, too. Radio Kirk talk to me 04:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Anyone who is reading this please note that there has been recent vandalism on the Drake and Josh Go Hollywood article. thanks. Jim 02:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite vandalism, but certainly a violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks for the heads-up. Radio Kirk talk to me 02:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commander in Chief (TV series)[edit]

There is a grammar error in this article (it says a executive producer instead of an executive producer). Please take care of this. Thank you. Jim 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check that, thanks for the note. May I ask, once again, that you place new messages on the bottom of the page? It's much easier that way (I and other users won't have to hunt for it). Radio Kirk talk to me 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy debate[edit]

Under the subheading negative strategy, and then under the subheading under that-topicality, it says, "The Negative will attempt to argue that the Affirmative team does not fall under the rubric of the resolution and should be rejected immediately regardless of the merits or disadvantages of the plan." However, it should be advantages of the plan, not disadvantages. Please change this. Thank You. Jim 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have to ask a favor of you, though: You are essentially editing through whoever sees your notices here (thus far, me); this is not considered to be acceptable behavior for a blocked user. I will be more than happy, since this page is on my watchlist, to handle any requests you make to stop vandalism in progress, as that does require immediacy; as for any other edits, I must ask that you make notes until your block expires, and implement any needed changes at that time. While this is hardly the textbook definition of meat puppetry, it's close enough to be frowned upon. Thanks again for helping out. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared and I know everything about the ICC.

-Elliott Johnson, Policy Debate Semi-Finals, 1AR, Sioux Falls Lincoln Silverbowl Tournament, January 2006

Jared never answered this. Don't let him answer it in his rebuttal. Even if he does talk about, which he probably will, because that's what he does.

-Caitlin Hurkes, Policy Debate Semi-Finals, 2NR, Sioux Falls Lincoln Silverbowl Tournament, January 2006

The best kind of soft power is hard power

-Jacob Logue

RadioKirk, what's up? Thanks again to reducing my block to 3 months. Do you like the quotes on my talk page?

You're welcome, hope to see good things from you then. As for the quotes... well, they may seem non sequitur to the rest of us, but that's what user space is for ;) RadioKirk talk to me 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How come now when I do the four tildas (~) it says Jim instead of Jim16?

Have you changed anything in preferences lately? Signature, nickname, checking any boxes that weren't checked before, etc.? RadioKirk talk to me 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim16 04:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RadioKirk-Do you think that Tom Daschle would make a good president?

I stay the heck out of political arguments ;) RadioKirk talk to me 01:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Do some serious editing to the cannabis article when block exprires.

Note to self: Dragons are pissy.

Could someone please leave a message?

Have you tried RuneScape?

Seriously, your remaining time off here is going to pass by awfully slowly if you're a clock-watcher. Get more involved in the other things you do and it will seem like much less time before you're back here, being productive on Wiki. :) RadioKirk talk to me 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT[edit]

Attention: There is vandalism to the Anchorman: Legend of Ron Burgundy article. I am referring to when it says that Ron Burgundy is the balls. RadioKirk, please fix this.

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for taking care of the vandalism, RadioKirk. I owe you one.

NOTE TO SELF: EDIT THE STEVE CAREY SECTION OF THE DREW CAREY SHOW ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: REMOVE NPOV FROM NICOLLETTE SHERIDAN ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE THE WORD PATERNITY TO MATERNITY IN THE LIST OF LONGTIME Y & R CHARACTERS ARTICLE, SUBPOINT KATHERINE CHANCELLOR WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE THE WORD MOTHER-IN-LAW TO STEPMOTHER IN THE LONGTIME CHARACTERS OF THE YOUNG & THE RESTLESS ARTICLE-SUBPOINT PATTI WILLIAMS WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE THRITY TO THIRTY WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES (IN MILLIONAIRE ARTICLE)

NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE AS BUSY BODY TO A BUSY BODY IN MARIE BARONE ARTICLE (QUOTES)

NOTE TO SELF: LINK MEL MARTINEZ IN KATHERINE HARRIS ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES.

NOTE TO SELF: CHANGE legislture TO LEGISLATURE IN GOVERNOR OF SOUTH DAKOTA ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: DO SOME MASSIVE EDITING TO THE LYNDON B. JOHNSON ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

NOTE TO SELF: REMOVE POV FROM LISA TUCKER ARTICLE WHEN BLOCK EXPIRES

What's up[edit]

Hey, RadioKirk, what's up? Jim16 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busy ;) It's good to see you making notes of things to do; I'm looking forward to seeing good things when your block expires, set for first thing in the morning on 29 July. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RadioKirk[edit]

I was just wondering, what do you do for a living? Just curious. Jim16 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my user page. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

RadioKirk, there is vandalism to the Dawlish (Auror) article.

Someone already got it, thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)\[reply]

Block[edit]

When does my block expire? Jim16 01:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Tree huggers are cool. Not.[reply]

As soon as I'm awake on 29 July. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention RadioKirk[edit]

There is vandalism to the Taylor Hicks article.

Unblock[edit]

Yay, my block will expire in 4 days!

Re: Hey[edit]

Glad to hear it! I see you'd made several notes and you've probably followed up on them by now. Feel free to keep me in mind for any questions you may have, and happy editing! RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk page[edit]

No, it's not "illegal", but it often looks like an editor is trying to hide something when they blank a page. You're free to do so, but many editors think archiving is best. If you agree with archiving, cut what you want from this page and paste it to the bottom of your existing archive. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]