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

: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)

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

:) Jerimee 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Noticed your good contributions on the "minimum wage article". A number of wiki users have been working on a similar article on Debatepedia.com - [http://debatepedia.com/index.php/Minimum_Wage_in_the_United_States Minimum Wage in the United States Debate]. Just thought you might be interested. Loudsirens 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} Nv8200p talk 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

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

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|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)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC