User talk:Jim Meadows

After that 1st post, I'm considering trying to rename myself "HeadShot".Jim Meadows (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Editor

I used to edit a little bit back when I was young. It's been so long I've even forgotten my user name. I was big into encryption and privacy at the time, so I went overboard and made my username and password "hardened" I made comments and tried to edit pages for movie stars, about things like their birth data and where they were born, because my favorite site at the time had nothing but that, so I'd read something on the website, and then check the Wikipedia Article if it had the latest information. Like when Lindsey Lohan got her DWI. And that account died with my laptop at the end of the semester in Montana. Anyways, now I'm back and I'm older and even though I remember most of the "rules", I never really paid much attention to the "higher level" conversations where highly disputed issues were resolved. I'm good with places and dates, but not good with concepts like "balance" So if anyone wants to help me along I'd appreciate it. Try to explain to me how two or more people can disagree and how you, uh... "synthesize" that into words in an article.Jim Meadows (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah....maybe you ought to go away again and come back when you're not only older still, but also a bit wiser then you appear to be now, and can accept WP:reliable sources, WP:Consensus, and WP:Neutral point of view and no longer harbor ideas such as "Jews control the media". [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:The Daily Stormer for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - Mr X 🖋 12:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single thing I said in those Talk Pages was directly related to the Article and the fact that it failed to mention the censorship of The Daily Stormer, to include not even having the word "censorship" in the article on the Daily Stormer even once. Please cite any examples of my speech that was not directly relevant to that Article.Jim Meadows (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim Meadows. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be careful when editing and ensure that any changes you make to articles conform to our policies and guidelines. In particular please note WP:AGENDA WP:NPOV WP:CITE and WP:RS. I do not know, nor do I care about your political/social beliefs. However I have had a number of dealings with BMK over the years and I trust his judgement so I wanted to drop you this friendly note of caution. We do not block or ban people for their beliefs or opinions, even if they are controversial or downright odious. But attempting to promote fringe ideologies, or similar beliefs is not tolerated. Those who do so generally find their tenure here to be both unpleasant... and short. If you have any questions or concerns please feel to drop me a line on my talk page or you may ping me to the relevant discussion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AO, for explaining this more politically and politely then I am capable of doing at this moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, I'm SarekOfVulcan. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that this editor appears to believe that "autistic" is a derogatory word, in the form of his complaining about my "autistic screeching" in this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken As you have asked this editor not to communicate with you or post on your talk page, I think it only reasonable that you should also refrain from posting on theirs. I have never really been a fan of one way IBans. @Jim Meadow, you are tacking onto a lee shore. I strongly advise you to read WP:NPA and change your course immediately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct on your part, my mistake. I won't post here again. Thanks for hitting me with the cluebat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jim Meadows (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read the Guide and it says before I request an unblock I should know why I was blocked to begin with, and that has not been explained to me.

Decline reason:

Well, then. Clearly I cannot unblock you as you would only repeat the same WP:nothere behavior. As you do not understand by now, the issue of WP:CIR comes to mind. In case you have forgotten what behaviors led to your block, SarekOfVulcan left some reminders below this template. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For example, violating WP:TPO by deleting other editor's comments. Violating WP:NPA by referring to another editor's contributions as "autistic screeching". And then there's where you claimed there were no reliable sources to use because of the massively disproportionate representation of Jews in the mass media.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW-- I am autistic. That "autistic screeching" comment was way below the belt. It is you, by making such a post, that treat us as though we are less than human. Good day. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]