User talk:203.214.26.233

Button bar on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Hello there! Thank you for trying to add to Wikipedia. However, you have been recently adding the button bar back to the article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season repeatedly. Unfortunately, the Three-revert-rule restricts each editor to three reverts in a given 24-hour period (unless it's something trivial, like vandalism). Since you've already passed this limit, please don't replace the bar the next time someone removes it. Thank you, and feel free to keep contributing to Wikipedia! AySz88^-^ 04:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You are being blocked for a time for violation of the three revert rule. --Golbez 05:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

1. 22:51, October 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (restored button bar again - isn't this fun?)
2. 22:46, October 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
3. 19:58, October 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) 2005 Atlantic hurricane season
4. 13:08, October 31, 2005 (hist) (diff) 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Every one of these edits was to put the button bar in. Clearly, there's either four reverts or three, depending on how you read the rule. Your last edit comment betrays your lack of good faith and civility. --Golbez 05:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I could see only three, and struggle to match up the times as we're in different timezones. But yes, I can see I may be in technical violation. You'll see I haven't made further reverts after AySz88's note above. You might not like the button bar, but as another user said, it's a matter of opinion.

Responding to your comment on my talk page, there seems to be four reverts, so you probably got blocked for technically breaking the rule. You'll have to talk to Golbez. (edit conflict) And there's his response. Golbez seems to have thought you were a vandal or a sock puppet; I can't do anything about that. The block is only 12 hours long, and User:Master Thief Garrett performed it.

Golbez, I'd be hesitant before calling lack of good faith. The "Isn't this fun?" doesn't necessarily mean he was vandalizing the page; it might be an indication of frustration, for example. AySz88^-^ 06:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, your lack of good faith outweighs any technicality. No, it's not fun. --Golbez 06:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re good faith.. Pot, kettle, black? There's a genuine difference of opinion, and I'm slightly bemused by the ability of anyone to edit content.

Thanks guys. It's disappointing Golbez felt the need to resort to personal attacks, or that anyone felt the need to push forward with stronger enforcement after the rule was brought to my attention and no further violation was practiced or intended. [Edit: And now Golbez himself reverts more than three times - how's that for double standards?]