User talk:Kingjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have decided to leave English Wikipedia

1 WP Munich
2 Panairjdde
3 WP Munich Invitation
4 WP Munich members
5 3RR violation on Talk:Karlovy Vary
6 Block
7 Please someone add this to Talk:Karlovy Vary#WikiProject Germany

[edit] WP Munich

Hi Thanks for the invite to join WP Munich. At this stage i'm going to have to say "thanks but no thanks" I'm working on getting the various german football stadium pages up to scratch and it's a much bigger task than I first though. Thanks again, the invite is much appreciated.Tancred 01:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Panairjdde

Hi there--I'm seeking volunteers to help enforce the community ban on Panairjdde. I know that he's frequently crossed your path while editing, so I thought you might be interested. Drop by the page. Thanks! Dppowell 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He never left: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kwame_Nkrumah As far as I can tell, he has continued to edit via at least a dozen socks since his ban. Three of his latest are pending in WP:RFCU right now. Dppowell 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich Invitation

Dear Kingjeff. I have accepted your invotation to the with pleasure and I feel honoured to have to have received it in the first place. Of course I did not do this lightly, as my experiences o the field of german soccer tell me that there are some users about that remind me of Iggy Pop and think that they have all the wisdom.

I am sure, we can demonstrate competence, strength as a group and that type of fotitudes, which will surely bring forward Munich realted articles and Wikipedia as a whole! Mye heart is definitelyu in it! After all, I have lived in that city for a good part aof my life and received even my priomary education there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oalexander-En (talk • contribs) 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WP Munich members

maybe we should clarify and define what each section is, because I don't know which one I think I'd fit in. I watch the Bayern Munich related articles because I'm a fan, and edited the Munich Barons article (because I'm Canadian, lol) but other then that I don't see much else I would be helpful with.

--Jadger 06:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation on Talk:Karlovy Vary

I reported your edits on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Feel free to comment. Balcer 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You still broke 3RR. If you want to avoid being blocked, it might be a good idea to roll back your own changes to show your good will in this matter. Please consider doing that. Balcer 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been reported for 3RR violation on Talk:Karlovy Vary and I have blocked you for 1 week, as this is part of an ongoing pattern of editwarring and 3RR violations, based on your block history. Please note that the 3RR policy does not depend on the merit of the edits - it is a simple mathematical rule that says you can't revert more than 3 times per 24 hours. Kingjeff, please take the time off to carefully review our WP:3RR policy and to reflect on your future conduct here. You can decide to edit collaboratively, observing 3RR limits, or you can continue to violate the policies and be blocked for progressively longer periods of time, eventually permanently. I sincerely hope you make the right choice. Thanks, Crum375 04:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "A one week block is really to harsh here. If you take a look here, here, here, here and here then you'll see that I have tried to do this sensibly. As far as my history with 3RR, you can look here and here, you'll see that I was reported by User:Panarjedde. If you look here here then you'll see that he was a banned user at the time that he reported me for those 2 3rr violations. If you look here, you'll see that User:Jayjg, a Wikipedia admin, agrees with those blocks being erased off my record."

Decline reason: "You seem to be confusing content and conduct. No one reviewing your block cares if you were right or wrong on content. You need to break out of the mentality that if you are right on content, you can do whatever you want to keep it at "the correct version." It doesn't work that way here. You revert more than three times, you lose your editing privileges for a specified amount of time. You have been told this numerous times, but it seems like you don't get it. Instead of complaining about how harsh the block is (it's not harsh, actually, this was supposed to happen quite a while ago), perhaps you should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting. If you were right (or if you are convincing enough), naturally people will support you. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

A week is a bit much for this I think. User:Balcer reporting this guy on a simple technical violation in the middle of a fairly clean debate was rather mean-spirited and self serving. This really didn't deserve the five-minute major. Wiggy! 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I have an admin who will look into my case? I don't know why others are getting their appeals heard and not mine. Kingjeff 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff, here is your 3RR violation report. You can clearly see how you reverted 4 times within a 24 hours period, in clear violation of WP:3RR, after having a pattern of similar violations in the past. I hope this time around you'll have ample chance to reflect on your behavior and options, so that when you come back you decide to play by the rules. Crum375 17:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But the 3rr blocks was clearly about the ban user. I don't see how you can justly do this for a week. Kingjeff 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that who ever the admin is in looking at my appeal looks at the comments about the length of the block here. Kingjeff 17:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingjeff: At your request, I looked into the events leading up to your one week block for 3RR on Talk:Karlovy_Vary. While a one week block for adding a tag to a talk page seems excessive, I'd like to point out that this was not an isolated case. You have been blocked no less than three times in the past for edit-wars, and that didn't seem to affect your behaviour much. It makes no difference who reported this 3RR violation; the facts here speak for themselves: you should have known better, and stopped as soon as you realized there was no consensus about the tag you wanted to add. I acknowledge the fact that you did try to reason with the other editor and reach a consensus, but when that failed, you just went ahead and forced your version on everyone. In light of all that, I am not shortening the block. In the future, please try to involve an admin or other editors before you enter an edit war. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't force anything on anyone. In fact, it was User:Balcer forcing it on everyone else. The point I was trying to point out to Balcer is that it should stay up until a consensus is finalized. here is the proof of that. If you look here and here, you will see that other members in the debate agrees with me over this issue about the tag remaining until a consensus is finalized. Kingjeff 19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you had to make that reversion four times is all the proof I need that you acted improperly. Whether or not the other editor had consensus to his version is immaterial; had he been the one to make the fateful fourth edit in 24 hours, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If, indeed, others agree with your version, you'd be wise to drop out of the edit war before breaching 3RR, and let others handle the discussion and editing. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no edit war on my part. Even the user that reported me said this is excessive. Kingjeff 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Request reason: "The admin from the the appeal made the error of not looking at all the evidence. Most of the users who have spoken up says this punishment is too harsh. Physicq210 says I "should learn the art of discussion and civil argument instead of blindly reverting." What does he think happened before the block?"

Decline reason: "It appears that this is your eigth block, your fourth for engaging in edit wars. It is standard to continue to extend each new block as the previous blocks clearly didn't teach the user anything. Maybe a week long block will this time. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 01:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

[edit] Please someone add this to Talk:Karlovy Vary#WikiProject Germany

WikiProject Germany says, "This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Germany, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Germany in a fair and accurate manner."

Based on this and the comments that have been posted, this article seems to have a place in WP Germany. Not in a geographical sense like WikiProject Czech Republic but in a historical sense. Since there is sense before Germany became a nation in January 1871 and from a historical standpoint you would definetly have to consider German occupation of Czechoslovakia. Kingjeff 18:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/User_talk%7EKingjeff_611b.html"

Category: Wikipedians who are not currently active