User talk:JKim

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Kim for sure. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Kim

Kim for sure, Howdy! Your message on my page "Wikipedia is not...aimed at boring burocrats. Now I confess that I am a little puzzled by your riddle, but I see that earlier I had reverted an edit you had made and I am reasonably certain that sparked our interaction. To explain my edit, wikipedia lists are supposed to be lists of wikipedia articles. Now when people are unaware of this standard, they come in and add names of people who don't have an article on wikipedia. When that happens the name that is linked appears red rather than blue. People who maintain these lists usually go through periodically and remove these "redlinks" (which explains my edit summary "removed redlinks") in order to maintain the integrity of the list. I am sorry if you felt I was being unfair, I was simply trying to keep the list within wikipedia's standard. Now if you feel that Jiménez del Oso, and Pedro Ribera deserve an article on wikipedia you are welcome to write it. Understand that they will need to fulfill wikipedia's notability standards if you expect the articles to stay. If you need some help feel free to contact me, Ill see what I can do to assist you. Good luckCoffeepusher (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity of Earth

It is generally true that if you gain significant altitude, gravity is reduced. However, if your altitude gain is due to adding mass such as a mountain under your feet, gravity may be increased. The gravitational attraction near southern India and Sri Lanka is actually the lowest found on Earth's surface. In the map, the blue lower areas are reduced gravity, while the red, raised (mountains) are elevated gravity. Also, if you go "down" to the center of the Earth, gravity would be near zero as the gravitational attraction from all parts of the Earth would cancel. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; 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. and of course your personal attack on me at Talk:Yonaguni Monument, it's pretty obvious that was you. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Chrisahn. Firestar464 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, users may remove content from their own talk pages (WP:OWNTALK). You we're asked to cease contacting Chrisahn. Further comments on that user's talk page beyond required notifications constitutes harassment. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - BLP & AP2

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are continuing the personal attacks

You've been blocked once already for harassment. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack. You again blocking knowledge. Bad luck the Ufo theme has outweighed you :-) JKim (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Osireion, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]