User talk:JimBobUSA/Archive 4

The guy is a sociopath (Grant65 calling me names)

oh brother
Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive37#User:JimBobUSA
give me a break!  :::rolls eyes:::

• One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Yikes! Yikes! (Grant65 complaining)

Can it get any worse than this?

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold

Yikes! Yikes! Part Deux (Grant65 complaint...again!)

Wow. How many times can a person complain! Evidently, as many times as they please.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive453#User:JimBobUSA_.5Brevived_due_to_non-completion.5D

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive455#Japanese_war_crimes.2FYamashita.27s_gold_.28redux.29

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive457#Japanese_war_crimes.2FYamashita.27s_gold_.28third_redux.29

From the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Seagrave.27s_Yamashita.27s_gold

Japanese war crimes

I think the template you have used Japanese war crimes is not the appropriate one. May I suggest that you look through the range of templates in Template:Fact#See also and see if you can find a more appropriate one. You will find more via Wikipedia:Template messages#Maintenance --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how about {{Verify credibility}} and {{dubious}} from {{fact}} There are also some that you may think more appropriate in Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes including {{Disputeabout}} and perhaps the best in this instance is {{Conspiracy-section}} --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the deletion debate and can't be bothered to enter yet another debate. I suggest tag it with {{dubious}} before the end of the month (so it has "|date=July 2008"), put in a new section on the talk page with a "see also" link to the old section wait a month (start of September) and then delete the text you don't like with a comment on the talk page "I've waited month before deleting xyz" and watch the fur fly.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Yamashita's Gold

A slow speed edit war is still an edit war and is not conducive to resolving disputes, and you and another editor(s) have been trading reverts for days. It's important to discuss the outstanding disputes on the talk page because it's likely to end in editor blocks if the reverts continue. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You've been blocked for 24 hours for continuing to edit war at Yamashita's gold, despite being warned to stop. See AN3 for diffs and report. After the block expires, I ask that you use the talk page to discuss disputes, rather than disruptively edit warring. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

I revert your edit because I don't believe your rationale is enough to warrant for the deletion of the whole "primary sources". Those are neither "unreliable" but "uncyclopedic" as you insist. Wikipedia is not just "mere" encyclopedia, and other "common" encyclopedias do not have Pokemon series or drama episodes. That is Wikipedia's a character, reflecting "real life interest". Moreover, you remind me of something very familiar to me. The article has caught my attention because you have been reported to ANI numerous times, and Prince Chichibu who is allegedly involved in the looting was discussed at 2channel http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1218372119/ along with Flying tiger (talk · contribs)'s contributions. I don't believe all these puzzles are just coincidence. Well, if you ask my opinion on the primary source, I would say "no reason to delete them at all". Cheers.--Caspian blue 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I did not read the lengthy arguments between you and IP users who claim themselves as lawyers. However, I don't think those statements are fabricated as you have insisted. Many editors have addressed their concerns about you, so well actually I don't quite have a trust in your claim.--Caspian blue 00:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The locations of them are different. If you can prove that they use "open proxy", then your persistent allegation would meet a merit.--Caspian blue 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So you fail to prove your "allegation". There is no evidence to prove your insistence. Since I care about the article, that is "my business" and you should be civil to your opponent.