User talk:88.104.5.244

October 2012

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) 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. Legoktm (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi. Thanks for letting me know about that.

I note that others are involved in same 'edit war' and I hope that you will take that into account, and suitably deal with that part of the issue.

It's really quite trivial; I just wanted to let people know that the New York Times was currently available with no 'paywall'. The reason for them allowing free access is 'hurricane Sandy', and some perhaps thought the paywall was 'down' or something due to the hurricane; that's incorrect - NYT have totally voluntarily lowered their firewall.

Sven 'collapsed' the argument, but I posted to make sure the original point remained - that NYT is, for now, available. That, really, is all.

I hope you understand? 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have talked with or left messages with all involved parties asking them to stop. I will revert your reversion of my revert and that'll be it from me. The entire discussion was hatted by Sven, and it should remain that way. If someone is interested based on reading the header, they'll hit the [show] button and read it. Legoktm (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"I will revert your reversion of my revert" :-s

Yeah horrible wording. Sorry. I meant what I did here. Legoktm (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooookay, but, I object to that.

The purpose of the post was to make it clear to fellow editors that NYT paywall was inactive, and so they could use it.

That was the purpose of my adaptation to Sven's close.

So, hmm, how about we pretend the silly bickering never happened; how about this ? 88.104.5.244 (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

Stop removing those comments from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). I will block you if you remove them one more time. GB fan 03:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove the comments except... I made a point (NY times = free), then people made comments ('don't profit from their hurricane') then I responded, then it got silly... and I troed to calm things.

I couldn't, and thought that removing the sad mess was the best way forwards.

I did not remove comments. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how you can say you were not removing comments when your edit history says you removed 5476 bytes multiple times from the page. GB fan 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, 88.104.5.244. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at WP:VPM. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

see below 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (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=see below [[Special:Contributions/88.104.5.244|88.104.5.244]] ([[User talk:88.104.5.244#top|talk]]) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (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=see below [[Special:Contributions/88.104.5.244|88.104.5.244]] ([[User talk:88.104.5.244#top|talk]]) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (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=see below [[Special:Contributions/88.104.5.244|88.104.5.244]] ([[User talk:88.104.5.244#top|talk]]) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Why?

Sorry, but I can't 'appeal' unless I know why I'm blocked.

All I did was, tell Wikipedia that 'new york times' was lowering its paywall.

What'd I do wrong?

PLease explain why my own edits were problematic - ie, letting users know that NYT was available - c/f those of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop reverting, let someone else step in. You are to involved in this right now. GB fan 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

   Someone else finally did step in. This wasn't just about reverting; the IP was vandalizing the page by removing comments. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

       I saw what it was about and I was also stepping in. Sometimes when you get as involved as you are the best thing is to step back and ask for help instead of pushing it further. You were not helping diffuse the situation. GB fan 03:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

   GB, I accept that, and hope for fair resolution; please let me know my best course. Thanks. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

       This is a no-troll zone. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking admin said, "stop in the meantime so that it's easier to sort out" - come on... play fair. Why block the IP not the user? Makes no sense; clear prejudice. 88.104.5.244 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)