User talk:Kungfuw

June 2015

Your recent editing history at Natural-born-citizen clause shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I deem this edit by User:66.108.80.75 to have been performed by Kungfuw because it makes essentially the same change and presents essentially the same arguments in the edit summary: "Section on CRS interpretations is the correct placement for this. 1. Provide a reason why it should not be with other CRS text. 2. Also please adhere to the historical and source-based structure of this article or propose a different organization." Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Natural-born-citizen clause. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your position on this article's lede is understandable. As indicated in the edit notes, however, it has already been addressed -- twice -- before you joined Wikipedia. Please review the article's archives to understand why and how the decision to present the lede was made. And if you continue to disagree, as noted, the correct place to seek consensus is on the article's talk pages. And welcome to Wikipedia. Weazie (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weazie I see no discussion on this lede. Please provide a link. Please also explain why 1. A quote from the CRS should not be in the CRS section. 2. A quote whose editor thinks it's the "most likely" interpretation is not in violation of the WP-LEAD guidelines. 3. A quote that has no legal standing, no academic standing, and no Constitutional standing deserves to be in the lede. It is not even the most recent interpretation of the clause. There is no objective reason that quote should be the lede.

The lede will be removed, if not by me then by others, because it is in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines and of the structure of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfuw (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kungfuw, edit warring is not justifiable, even in a case where you are convinced that you are right and others are wrong. Quoting from WP:EW: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. |< — [[User:RichwalesRich]]wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales, thanks. I wasn't aware of that. I only thought of myself as correcting factual errors. Once I'm allowed to post again, I will work with everyone to establish consensus on this. No disrespect meant; if anything quite the contrary. — [[User:KungfuwKung]]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two months to the duration of your block because of block evasion with 66.108.80.75 (talk · contribs · count). The next time the block will be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]