User talk:Jbhunley/Archives/2018/January

Attention required
Hello. You were involved in a Admin incident a while back. Need your feedback in the talk page. as the issue has been brought up again. KevinNinja (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

(my first edit is of importance):


 * Please view discussions around Archive 4, there are also admin infraction discussions (particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936#Battle_of_France). You will find that Keith-264 has always been the one unwilling to work with other editors, starting edit wars, in order to impose his biased historical views. Here is a statement I made last time when I was reported to the admins by Keith for "edit warring":


 * Keith is just trying to do something that will win over some sort of edit superiority over the article so he can assert his biased and irrational views. Keith, how about instead of undoing all my edits without replying to the thread for reason (and going directly here to complain to the admins), you actually provide reason for why what stood for years in the past and what stands in hundreds of other GA's cannot be used in this article. Maybe you're the one to read WP:BRD, since you keep undoing my stuff without reason. Because, as I remember correctly, you were the one accused of edit warring by the admins last time, not me. And you're doing it again. KevinNinja (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After my statement, User:Jbhunley said:


 * From reviewing the talk page it seems to me that Keith-264 is unwilling to accept the talk page consensus. Edits like "The RS are against you 12:5 so prepare to be reverted if you do.Keith-264 (talk) 11:13 am, 21 September 2016, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)") when all of the other editors seem to have come to agreement shows an inability to drops the stick. The reverts today seem to be a follow on of the consensus to come up with Aftermath bullet points established in the same thread this quote was taken from. If this behavior continues I would suggest a BOOMERANG and a break of three months from Battle of France for Keith-264. JbhTalk 17:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that in bold should now be enforced. KevinNinja (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I am not an administrator, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Second, I am uninterested in engaging in drama on a subject I opined on more than a year ago. Third, if the prior two statements were not the case I would be strongly inclined to look upon the editor who tried to rope a relatively inactive editor, me, - not once, but twice - into their dispute as likely being as much of a problem as the editor they are complaining about. You were engaging with, an actual administrator, back on whatever page you pinged me from yesterday. I have full confidence in his ability to handle the matter at hand. I'd like to get back to contributing to Wikipedia but I sincerely hope that this is not what brings me back. Jbh  Talk  01:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)