Kung Hibbe

Welcome

Hello, Kung Hibbe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis...

...I know that it is a redirect; still, when you are reading an article or about an event which happened at the time when she was still married to JFK, I think that reading Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in blue is somewhat irritating. I think here common sense trumps wikipedia rules. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

2018 World Cup

There is a reason that arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is discouraged in most cases. From my understanding, WP:FOOTY has changed their minds about whether including material such as returning teams in the lead is necessary. It might be best to ask about it at WT:FOOTY. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Himnusz

Sorry -- didn't notice that you just changed the link! There are so many edits to the actual lyrics -- which are quotations, and so can't be changed -- that sometimes I get carried away. Thanks! Korossyl (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kung Hibbe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2018 Winter Paralympics

Howdy. Would you please stop changing Para Ice Hockey to Sledge Hockey, in the sports section of 2018 Winter Paralympics. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Para ice hockey is a redirect page. Kung Hibbe (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirects

Redirects are fine. Unnecessary piping is not. Please see WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Surtsicna (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No need to remove redirects just because. Read Wikipedia guinelines linked above. SLBedit (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kung Hibbe. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

3 December is a Monday. Kung Hibbe (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

"flawed"

If you add "flawed" in front of democracy, you not only need a source but also need to show that the term is reasonably representative of India. --regentspark (comment) 11:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

In the article Democracy Index you can read that India is a flawed democracy. Kung Hibbe (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You need to include a cite in the article (and wikipedia is not a reliable source). Also, as a general rule, you shouldn't mix purely cosmetic edits and content edits in the same edit. I'm not going to revert you, but do note these general points. --regentspark (comment) 11:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republika Srpska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serb Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republika Srpska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serb Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republika Srpska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serb Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Republika Srpska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serb Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

edit warring at 2020 CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Championship

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN before you try to fix this or any other redirect. Also, lower case at the start of a link is automatically converted to upper case so that doesn't need to be changed either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you have been pointed to WP:NOTBROKEN before, so I shouldn't have to repeat this now. Please stop "fixing" links of the form "[[A]]" to "[[B|A]] when "A" is already a redirect to "B". Links to redirects are perfectly fine and don't need to be piped like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This is your final warning. If you continue with your vacuous edits that make useless changes to redirect links, and if you continue in your refusal to communicate with other editors over their objections, you will be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there are readers who find it annoying when they follow a link and it says they were redirected. I find it annoying myself and try to make it easier for those readers. I avoid redirects in other language versions as well and nobody is threatening to block me. Kung Hibbe (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that you've been continuing to "fix" redirect links in numerous articles against the WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE guidelines, despite receiving a final warning, which is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Furthermore, you should not change existing piped links just to capitalize the first letter, like you did here: [1], as you have also been warned about above. It's a waste of your time, and the time of other editors who may be checking your edits. I've asked that you be blocked from editing. --IamNotU (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

If you revert, you are not a bit better yourself. Kung Hibbe (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You're mistaken, and this comment shows that you are not listening to other editors, and that you still don't understand WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, despite being directed to them numerous times, and even despite being blocked because of it. "Fixing" links to redirects is not only useless, it's actively damaging, for the reasons clearly explained in the guideline. That's why I've reverted them. You have been blocked to prevent ongoing damage to Wikipedia. You'll note that I did not revert the example above where you made an edit only to capitalize the first letters of piped links, because in that case yes, it is simply useless. That doesn't mean you may carry on making such useless edits, as they cause distraction and waste others' time in reviewing them. PS, what happens in other-language Wikipedias has no bearing on what happens here, because many of the rules may be different. Most likely though, you should not be doing it in those ones either. In any case, after your block expires, please be careful to follow the WP:LINKING and WP:REDIR guidelines closely in the future when editing here. It would also be helpful if you would go back and undo any edits where you have "fixed" links to redirects in the past. Thank you. --IamNotU (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am listening. If you find making links clearer so ”useless”, I will stop. I just do not understand why ”unfixing” the links back to redirects is so useful. Kung Hibbe (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Then how about you go look at WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, and tell me what it says there? --IamNotU (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have read them. One pillar is that Wikipedia has no firm rules but in some cases, one must absolutely link to redirects. Then I know. Kung Hibbe (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no firm rules, decisions are made by consenus, which is the method we have chosen to best achieve the goals of the five pillars. Decisions are not made by "do whatever you feel like". The fifth pillar is not a license to edit against consensus. Policies and guidelines reflect the current consensus of the community, which can change. If you have read and understood the good reasons that links to redirects should not be "fixed" (and hence such "fixes" should be reverted), as listed in WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE, but you just don't agree, then you can engage in discussion on the appropriate talk pages and try to get consensus to do it differently. If instead you repeatedly ignore widely-accepted guidelines, and other editors' requests that you follow them, because you don't like them, the consensus is that you'll be blocked from editing. --IamNotU (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese coronavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COVID-19 pandemic in China.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

polyuria

in future please discuss on talk/page, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kung Hibbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just make the links clearer. As i wrote before, I avoid redirects in other language versions as well and nobody has blocked me. Also, reverting my edits is not less disruptive. But I can stop if you so wish. Kung Hibbe (talk) 4:19 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You say here that you can stop if we so wish; yet above when you were told to stop, you kept going. Why did you keep doing it when told to stop and told later it was your final warning? only (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The final warning was that I would become blocked if I continued with my ”vacuous” edits that maked ”useless” changes to redirect links, and if I continued in my refusal to communicate with other editors over their objections. I have never refused to communicate with you over your objections. I believed that it only was ”useless” to avoid redirects as the only editing action so I avoided redirects when I wrote talk posts, but apparently it was wrong believed. I will stop making links clearer. Kung Hibbe (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the veracity of the above statements, in the course of looking at the multiple accounts (see below) I saw that Kung Hibbe has received numerous complaints since at least 2016 in other-language Wikipedias, and was in fact blocked once from template space in Dutch Wikipedia, for making similar disruptive changes to links.

I also noticed in this edit: [2], which is Kung Hibbe's reply to the warnings by Future Perfect at Sunrise in which they were explicitly told to stop "fixing" links of the form "[[A]]" to "[[B|A]] when "A" is already a redirect to "B"., that Kung Hibbe edited FP's comment and "fixed" the link from [[WP:NOTBROKEN]] to [[Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken|WP:NOTBROKEN]]. They even edited the block notice itself, to remove redirect links: [3] Hilarious! But rather concerning... --IamNotU (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Is this you? Myspersson (talk · contribs) - if so, why are you using multiple accounts? Do you have any others? --IamNotU (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course Myspersson is not I. I am not a sockpuppet. I know that it is forbidden. Kung Hibbe (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, IamNotU. I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kung Hibbe, but I think it's a obvious WP:DUCK situation. only (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

But I promise that I am not Myspersson and I will stop doing edits you find vacuous. Kung Hibbe (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

These situtations usually go better if you're just honest, admit your mistakes, and apologize. You've made many helpful contributions, so try not to get yourself in trouble that you can't get out of. On the other hand, as explained above, many of your edits that go against the guidelines have been not just "vacuous", but actually cause damage and disruption. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

When Future Perfect at Sunrise gave me a final warning, I explained why I avoided redirects. Many days later, Future Perfect at Sunrise had not objected against my explanation, so I continued. Now I understand that it was wrong done. It was never my intention to cause damage and disruption. And do you believe that I am lying when I claim that Myspersson and I are different people? Kung Hibbe (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, yes, I believe you are lying about not being Myspersson. --IamNotU (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

PS, I don't know why you had two accounts, but there's no other plausible explanation. The other account has been blocked. I do believe that you don't have an intention to specifically cause damage or disruption. But I see that you've been told many times before that these edits are disruptive, and you continued anyway. It's not the same thing, but there isn't a really huge difference either.

Fyi, it's generally inappropriate to edit other editors' talk page comments, even if it's non-displaying code, as you did to only's comment here: [4]. There are a few exceptions where it's ok to edit others' comments, but just because you don't like that someone puts two spaces after their periods isn't one of them. Nobody's going to block you for it, but still... some people would find it a bit rude. Just saying. I've seen it happen before.

One more thing, if somone leaves a message on your talk page and you want to reply, usually you would add the {{u}} or {{ping}} templates that send a notification. I mention it because you said you assumed it was ok to continue removing redirect links after your final warning, because Future Perfect didn't object to your explanation. But he likely never read your explanation, because you didn't notify him of it. Some people will check back, or add your talk page to their watch list, but you can't expect everyone to, especially a busy admin. I hope that helps. --IamNotU (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kung Hibbe. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Kung Hibbe, I'd encourage you to make an unblock request. I don't see evidence that your other account was used to evade a block for example. I also think that you've made many helpful contributions to Wikipedia, and could continue to do so in the future, if you can improve on some of the problem areas. An unblock request would entail admitting to the use of multiple accounts. If you'd done so earlier, you would probably have received only a short block. --IamNotU (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kung Hibbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

An account should only be blocked indefinite if it is obvious that it was created solely for the purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia. None of my edits have been intended as vandalism. Kung Hibbe (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your reasoning has no basis in policy. Please read this guide to appealing blocks. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

IamNotU has pointed out that I have made many helpful contributions to Wikipedia, and could continue to do so in the future so an indefinite block is too long. And you linked to GAB which redirects to Gab. It is not a guide to appealing blocks. Kung Hibbe (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Kung Hibbe, I'm responding because I got a notification that you mentioned my name with a "user" link. Ponyo did not receive a notification, and so might not respond. Indefinite is not the same as permanent. But it will be, if you are unable to be honest. You're blocked unless and until you fulfill the requirements at WP:GAB, the link to which you no doubt already saw in the original block notice. You said above that you understand that sock puppetry is forbidden. You are blocked for sock puppetry. Do you still deny that you have improperly used multiple accounts? There's no fixed limit to the number of times you can appeal your block using the "unblock" template, but if you make too many appeals that don't say anything about the reasons you were blocked, you will be blocked from this talk page too. --IamNotU (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand what I did and why I have become blocked. I admit my mistakes and apologize for them. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive way. I think blocking me indefinite was wrong. A block is not intended as punishment. A week or so would have been enough. Kung Hibbe (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kung Hibbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I try again. As I wrote above, I understand why I have become blocked. I understand that I did wrong and apologize for it. I would very much like the block to be shortened to one week. Kung Hibbe (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unbelievably, you continue to evade your block even as you make unblock requests. We're not going to waste any more time on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kung Hibbe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I should not have evaded the block. I am sorry I must do it again but you have blocked me from editing inlogged so this is the only way. I have changed after two years. No more sock puppetry from me! Give me a second chance! 217.116.228.14 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are evading this block by making this request. You know perfectly well, or manifestly lack sufficient competence to ever be unblocked how to make your unblock request as we give you directions immediately above. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

UTRS appeal #73695

is closed. Check user block. Most recent sock block in May. I told them SO. On the other hand, WP:CBANned? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

OMG, same hollow promises were made in UTRS as above. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Block evasion

You were blocked for disruptive editing and you perpetually evade this block with your sockpuppetry. Each time you are caught, don't expect other editors to waste their time scrutinising each individual edit to find if any are, against the pattern, constructive. You are barred from editing at all, any edits by you are disruptive by definition and the reasonable presumption is that they be summarily reverted.

If you wish to participate on Wikipedia, promise to stop waging a campaign against links that are WP:NOTBROKEN, promise to stop socking, actually mean it this time and WP:APPEAL your block. If you can't, stay away. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You would have a high hill to climb in appealing your block but promising to avoid making amendments to any link, controversial or not, may go some way. Any socking to carry out link amendments would of course invoke a resumption of the block. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)