Jim Lopez

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editor at Talk:Global city. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Global city, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Global city

You need to stop with your rants about the use of the word global. You are being disruptive and that only leads to blocking. Find another site where you can discuss the misuse of the word. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear friend,

I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone, but debate isn't why were are here, building an encyclopedia is. We have articles on many, many topics I think are odd, silly or even bizarre, including many that will likely not be read once a year. This is because they meet a specific criteria for inclusion, meaning they are notable due to being covered in a significant way by multiple, reliable sources. This is the objective criteria we use. It may be irritating to the eye and our sense of good grammar, but we are forced to use the same terms the sources use by virtue of policy. Global city just so happens to be one of those. It isn't our job to decide what phrases should be used at subject, our job is solely to document the facts surrounding them.

At this point, the debate has become quite disruptive, enough so that you risk being blocked. I would prefer you not force my hand and instead work on other projects at Wikipedia, and save the debate regarding whether the term is proper or not to another website, as that is outside of what we do here. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Apart from the disruptive nature of your endless plugging of the same point long after it has become clear that consensus is against you, there is also the fact that you have, for no apparent good reason, removed talk page comments by other editors about other matters. Please avoid doing so again, as it is likely to look like vandalism. I hope you will now drop your campaign, realising that you do not have the support of the community, and make constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia in other ways. If, however, you do persist and are blocked, such issues as removing the rest of the talk page contents are likely to lead to the block being longer than it might otherwise have been, so it woulf be a good idea to be more careful about such mistakes. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)