User talk:88.104.27.75

September 2013

Hello, I'm SFK2. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! See WP:POINT SFK2 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. PLEASE NOTE: Simply being unreferenced is not excuse enough to remove a section. Rather, if a substantial amount of content is unreferenced, it's far better to seek out references for the content rather than simply removing it (unless of course info falls under other violations like BLP, In popular culture, etc.). Please make every attempt to source content (or correct it) using reliable sources before removing content. Thank you. DKqwerty 05:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh? What removal? 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

These: [1], [2], [3], [4]. DKqwerty 05:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:V, you cannot reinstate those edits unless you can provide appropriate references. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN states, "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I've neither added to nor restored any of your edits. However, I'll note that WP:BURDEN in no way gives permission for section blanking. The more logical course of action is to take these issues to article talk pages, or simply find a contradictory and reliable ref and correct the info; but blanking is not acceptable behavior without more salient issues being involved, like BLP or IPC. DKqwerty 05:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, incorrect. Read it again. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." You've done none of the actions prescribed by the very policy you're citing. This is my last comment regarding this issue, as you're clearly operating under WP:IDHT DKqwerty 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to The Key School with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to The Key School. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I only removed unsourced content - per the wikipedia guidelines. Please, explain the problem?

I won't, first, you are not my boss, second WP:V is not a justification to edit-war. It is not an exception to the WP:3RR, which you have violated. Third, you are reported at ANI, so I suggest you to stop "applying" policies to articles under a lack of understanding those policies. In case you didn't know, like >70% of all Wikipedia articles are unsourced or contain unsourced information, are we removing it? No. Stop, or this will end up at AIV and EWN. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I prefer WP:IAR, because you neither are following WP:V, just applying it to justify edit-wars and blankings pages: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Did you attempt to try to verify the information? No, because you blanked four pages in a few minutes. And considering chatting won't work with you, as you still believing it is justified and V is a shield, I'll report you to the WP:EWN for edit-warring. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Key School shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction – What is Wikipedia?
• The Five Pillars – What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines – How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages – How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing – How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images – How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia – How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

See also

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! 88.104.27.75, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuous Removal

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. EzPz (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  - Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Comment from blocking admin: as explained in the block notice above, you were blocked for edit warring. This block has nothing to do with the content of the article, to which I will make no comment at this time. It is solely due to the disruption caused by edit warring rather than getting consensus for the changes first. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Barek, there's no need to get consensus to remove unreferenced shite. You surely know that. WP:V, WP:N, and so on.

I have done nothing wrong, as far as I can tell. Lift this block right now, please - or explain why not. Thanks. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am blocked; I request posting onto ANI

"I only removed unsourced claims from an article,

Please tell me why I've been blocked?"

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Pls post this;

I'm blocked, but please post this to User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Refs - it's a discussion of my "block". Thanks.

---

Hi Jimbo, well, there ya go,

I clicked through random articles and found one poorly ref'd - it was The Key School

I tried to fix it as per your wishes, and pretty quickly was banned from wikipedia.

I know you don't have time to read much, but it's all there in my contribs history,,,,

Fucks' sake, wikipedia needs to be *fact* - people removing the bullshit shouldn't be blocked.

• DO SOMETH* 88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Barek

"I have blocked the user"

You never even spoke to me - not a single word!

Barek = you blocked me.

I explained, I only removed unsourced information - what did I do wrong?

By 'undoing' my edits, you added information that is not verifiable.

What the fuck am I doing wrong by removing it?

88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

In response to your three comments / questions above ...

1) You claim I never spoke to you: I have left messages for you; I posted a block notice (above) and posted a comment below the first of your unblock requests.

2) Re: reason for block: As I stated (in those above posts to you), you were blocked for edit warring. After the block expires (in 31 hours) you are welcome to edit Wikipedia again.

3) You claim I undid your edits - I have never edited the article. Not once.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Diff please? In [5]] I can't see anything previous.

2. How can I possibly be 'edit warring' when I'm just removing something that cannot be verified?

88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

ani

Please post the following on WP:ANI, directly below "That works. Altho someone restored it"

Good-faith users should not be blocked for removing unreferenced info, per [[WP:V}] and WP:PILLAR

Can anyone explain why they should? 06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two things, what you do, and how you do it. In volunteer-driven communities, the latter matters a lot. You may want to take your time to get started, with the help of links at Help:Getting started, and try to not look or at least not participate in ongoing discussions meanwhile. Gryllida (talk) 07:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Please chill, guy!

The results on Key School are probably what is best for the project. The problem is the way you went about achieving it. This is a collaborative project. You must work with other editors, not just try to bull your way through, even if your intended results are what is best. To use the instance at hand as an example, after your first removal of content from the article, when the other editor replaced it, you should have started a discussion on the talk page of the article. In this instance, WP:BURDEN is on you, as you reverted the additions and edits of many different editors. Please note that I agree completely with the last edit you made to the page. You just shouldn't have made it.

There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Other than a few stories that are breaking news (the shooting at the Connecticut elementary school comes to mind), nothing changes fast enough to be in a hurry about your editing. it would not hurt if the Key School article stayed the pile of crap it was for a few days more. If you had posted a justification for your edit (and please note that WP:V is not enough of a justification for the edit you made) and no-one responded to it in a few days, then you would be fine to go ahead and take it out again.

Note that my mention in the above paragraph that WP:V is not enough justification to mass remove content (except in biographies, but then it falls under WP:BLP), I am referring to non controversial content. WP:V only applies to controversial content. Not much in a school article is controversial. The only things I insist on independent sourcing for in a high school article is info about people (and since discussion of people in high school articles is not considered encyclopedic in most cases, that isn't much) or claims of achievement, such as academic ranking or athletic achievement. A much better argument would have been based in WP:PROMO, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG.

getting excited to the point of swearing at folks will not ever accomplish much for you here. Take it calm, take it easy, and walk away and do something else for a while if you feel yourself getting upset. if you can't play well with others, you will just keep getting blocked here. For your immediate problem, the best advice anyone will give you for right now (1245am MDT) is to shut up and go away until you are settled and can understand things without your emotions getting in your way. You will just dig yourself a deeper hole if you don't. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"BURDEN is on you, as you reverted the additions" - nope, check back; I did not add anything. MDT? WTF is MDT? Believe it or not, there's a world outside America. And what do you call "swearing"? Fucks' sake. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been here a couple weeks. It may be in your best interest to start listening to people that have been here much longer when they try to give you helpful advice. If that is not the route you choose, that's just fine. A 31 hour block can easily be extended. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

help re mfd

Please post this at the bottom of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meeples10/School1st;

Re. "Wikipedia:USER#What may I have in my user pages?" - This page documents an English Wikipedia project content guideline." - not policy at all, far from it, 88.104.27.75 (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't post content for blocked folks. (Though not an uncommon point, it's still not documented, as the word 'block' speaks for itself.) Please consider bringing your message to the desired place after you can edit normally. Non-administrators, majority of people responding to {{helpme}} queries, wouldn't be able to review your block, so I'm marking the current query as closed. Gryllida (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Er, who decided that that was a policy, and when? 88.104.27.75 (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

unblock`

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

This seems to be an IAR block, so I'm not sure how to appeal it 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This seems to be an IAR block, so I'm not sure how to appeal it [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.75|88.104.27.75]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.75#top|talk]]) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This seems to be an IAR block, so I'm not sure how to appeal it [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.75|88.104.27.75]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.75#top|talk]]) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This seems to be an IAR block, so I'm not sure how to appeal it [[Special:Contributions/88.104.27.75|88.104.27.75]] ([[User talk:88.104.27.75#top|talk]]) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Seriously? IAR? The block reason, and the block notice above, and my two prior comments to you all make clear the block is for WP:edit warring. Failing to address the real reason for the block is unlikely to result in an unblock - and repeated abuse of the {{unblock}} tag by making frivolous unblock requests can potentially result in the revoking of access to edit your own talk page for the duration of the block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

"my two prior comments to you" - diffs please, thanks 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You replied back to me on both of those above comments. The block notice and both comments are still clearly visible on this talk page. Your failure to use the scroll bar isn't a reason to demand diffs - and plainly not needed given your replies to the comments I made earlier. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me spell it out further with a quote from WP:edit warring: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please could you give the diffs for the alleged "my two prior comments to you", thanks. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, you replied to both of them so are obviously already aware of them both, so no I won't bother linking diffs. Continued blatant trolling will result in your talk page access being revoked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• It would also be helpful if you could show the 3 diffs that allegedly breached policy, thank you. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. You are obviously aware of the edit warring, and choosing to ignore the comments to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

So, you refuse to explain your reason to block me with diffs? 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quote from above, "my two prior comments to you all make clear the block is for WP:edit warring".

Admin is unable to supply diffs for these 'two prior comments' - simply because they don't exist.

88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I won't bother when they are obviously not needed. The reason has been made in prior comments, to which you have replied directly to those comments above. You are clearly aware of WP:EW, as well as being aware of your own actions on the article (demonstrated by your own comments about those actions). Attempting to Wikilawyer around the facts with unnecessary and frivolous demands for diffs is pointless.

This is your final warning: one more such request or false accusation and your talk page access will be revoked, and the block extended. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense.

You can't support your reasoning, so you fall back on a 'big stick' and ban me from any way of refuting your bullshit.

Go for it then, big-boy.

Fucks' sake, power corrupts, eh? You're probably a nice person, but...Jesus... you can be a cunt when you try. Oh well, have fun with your imaginary superpowers, I'll be back to the wiki tomorrow on another IP. Byeeee. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. 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.  - Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Claiming ignorance when you yourself directly replied to the prior comments is beyond absurd. I have zero doubt that any unbiased review of this page and your edit history will demonstrate that you were blocked appropriately for edit warring, that you were obviously aware of the earlier comments as you yourself posted replies to them, and that you continued your disruption with frivolous demands.

Your block has been extended to 72 hours and talk page access has been revoked. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia again after the block expires. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

On Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Meeples10/School1st

Under "Snow Keep Doesn't look all that different from my own sandbox. This is exactly what sandboxes are for. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)"

Please post the following;

:Policy reason?

88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in the 'help re mfd' section, we don't post messages for people who have an active block at the time of their request. Gryllida (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Under "User talk:Meeples10" section "==MfD nomination of User:Meeples10/School1st==" please add this reply;

That is not a policy, it's just a guideline; policy is quite clear. 88.104.27.75 (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in the 'help re mfd' section, we don't post messages for people who have an active block at the time of their request. (To be a bit more verbose, whatever happens there, if it happens wrong, can be re-reviewed with your help later; the process is transparent, no history is lost, and good arguments have their merit regardless of time.) Gryllida (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)